The Arctic in The Anthropocene

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/18726 SHARE
The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions
DETAILS
224 pages | 7 x 10 | HARDBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-38704-0 | DOI 10.17226/18726
AUTHORS
BUY THIS BOOK Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic; Polar Research Board;
Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council
FIND RELATED TITLES

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientic reports

10% off the price of print titles
Email or social media notications of new titles related to your interests
Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE ARCTIC
IN THE ANTHROPOCENE
EMERGING RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic

Polar Research Board
Division on Earth and Life Studies

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of
the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The
members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special compe-
tences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, the Department of Energy
under award number DE-SC0008724; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration un-
der award number NNX13A014G; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under
award number WC133R-11-CQ-0048, TO#4; the National Science Foundation under award
number ARC-1243485; and the Smithsonian Institution under award number 12-PO-590-
0000254005. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring
agencies or any of their sub agencies.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-30183-1

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-30183-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014944501
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from The National Academies Press, 500
Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; Internet,
http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Cover image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin-

guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of
science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter
granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the
federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the
National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences
the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and
research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of
the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to se-
cure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy
matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given
to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal
government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and educa-
tion. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academys purposes of fur-
thering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general
policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of
both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing ser-
vices to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council
is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr.
C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org


COMMITTEE ON EMERGING RESEARCH QUESTIONS IN THE ARCTIC
HENRY P. HUNTINGTON (Co-Chair), The Pew Charitable Trusts, Eagle River, Alaska
STEPHANIE PFIRMAN (Co-Chair), Barnard College, Columbia University, New York,
New York
CARIN ASHJIAN, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts
LAURA BOURGEAU-CHAVEZ, Michigan Technological University, Ann Arbor, Michigan
JENNIFER A. FRANCIS, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
SVEN HAAKANSON, University of Washington, Seattle
ROBERT HAWLEY, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire
TAQULIK HEPA, North Slope Borough, Barrow, Alaska
DAVID HIK, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta
LARRY HINZMAN, University of Alaska Fairbanks
AMANDA LYNCH, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
A. MICHAEL MACRANDER, Shell Alaska, Anchorage
GIFFORD H. MILLER, University of Colorado Boulder
KATE MORAN, Ocean Networks Canada, Victoria, British Columbia
ELLEN S. MOSLEY-THOMPSON (NAS), The Ohio State University, Columbus
SAMUEL B. MUKASA, University of New Hampshire, Durham
TOM WEINGARTNER, University of Alaska Fairbanks
NRC Staff
MAGGIE WALSER, Co-Study Director

LAUREN EVERETT, Co-Study Director
LARA HENRY, Christine Mirzayan Fellow
ELIZABETH FINKELMAN, Senior Program Assistant
RITA GASKINS, Administrative Coordinator
SHELLY FREELAND, Senior Program Assistant
ROB GREENWAY, Program Associate

POLAR RESEARCH BOARD
JAMES C. WHITE (Chair), University of Colorado Boulder

WALEED ABDALATI, University of Colorado Boulder
SRIDHAR ANANDAKRISHNAN, Pennsylvania State University, University Park
JULIE BRIGHAM-GRETTE, University of Massachusetts Amherst
JOHN CASSANO, University of Colorado Boulder
JENNIFER A. FRANCIS, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
EILEEN E. HOFMANN,Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
ELLEN S. MOSLEY-THOMPSON, The Ohio State University, Columbus
GEORGE B. NEWTON, QinetiQ North America, Marstons Mills, Massachusetts
RAFE POMERANCE, Independent Consultant
CARYN REA, ConocoPhillips, Anchorage, Alaska
GAIUS R. SHAVER, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
KATEY WALTER ANTHONY, University of Alaska Fairbanks
ALLAN T. WEATHERWAX, Siena College, Loudonville, New York
Ex-Officio:
LARRY HINZMAN, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

TERRY WILSON, Ohio State University, Columbus
DENEB KARENTZ, University of San Francisco, California
NRC Staff
AMANDA STAUDT, Board Director

LAURIE GELLER, Program Director
MAGGIE WALSER, Senior Program Officer
LAUREN EVERETT, Associate Program Officer
LARA HENRY, Christine Mirzayan Fellow
AMANDA PURCELL, Research and Financial Associate
RITA GASKINS, Administrative Coordinator
ROB GREENWAY, Program Associate
SHELLY FREELAND, Senior Program Assistant
vi

Preface
T
his report comes at a unique time in human history. Never before has an ocean
opened up before our eyes, awakening many to the importance and relevance
of the far north. Because of the Arctics new strategic and economic potential,
most of the Arctic countriesthe United States, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark/
Greenland, Finland, Iceland, and Russiahave produced new or updated national
Arctic plans within the past year. These countries include some of the worlds largest
and strongest economies. Several of the national plans are oriented toward develop-
ment and increased empowerment of northern populations, as countries grapple with
the prospect of claiming newly accessible mineral and energy resources. Internation-
ally, the opening of the Arctic has raised issues of sovereignty and preparedness and
spurred political realignment. Recently, the European Command1 identified the Arctic
as a security concern. The non-Arctic countries of China, India, Italy, Japan, Singapore,
and South Korea were accepted as observers by the Arctic Council2 in 2013, joining
France, Spain, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The United
States will assume chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015.
The Arctic itself is unique. The seasonal shifts from icy white in winter to browns,
greens, and blues in summer are more extreme than anywhere else on Earth as the
snow melts on land and the sea ice retreats in the ocean. The Arctic Ocean is sur-
rounded by land, with narrow passages allowing interchange between the Pacific
and the Atlantic oceans. Its hydrology is subject to more terrestrial influence than is
any other oceans, and it receives freshwater from some of the largest rivers on Earth,
whose watersheds include much of North America and Asia. Some have called it the
estuary for the rest of the world ocean. The nearly encircling, shallow continental
shelves are dominated by national Exclusive Economic Zones; no other ocean has so
much of its area so designated. The United States shares international borders with
Russia and Canada in the Arctic.
Northern populations are unique in their relationship with the land, having thrived
through some of the largest climate variations on Earth, ranging from the Ice Age, with
mile-thick glaciers and frozen lands, to the warming, thawing, greening, glacial retreat,
and urbanization of the Anthropocene. Resilient in the face of past changes, they face
1 See http://www.eucom.mil/.
2 See http://www.arctic-council.org.
vii

P R E FA C E
a complex suite of disruptions, dislocations, and opportunities in the years to come

as all climate models project continued warming and loss of sea ice, on which many
of their traditional practices and food sources depend. The need for actionable Arctic
science has never been greater than it is today.
This report synthesizes the scientific communitys input on emerging research topics
that concern the Arctic (i.e., those questions that we are only now able to ask or have
a realistic prospect for studying). It especially considers topics that have been over-
looked or underrepresented in current Arctic research. It also outlines opportunities
and challenges in supporting new and existing research pathways and translating
that research into practical information that can help guide management and policy
decisions in the United States. The report is directed toward the Interagency Arctic
Research Policy Committee (IARPC),3 which represents 15 federal agencies and organi-
zations with responsibilities in the Arctic. It is designed to address the urgency for un-
derstanding the rapidly changing Arctic by connecting the dots among future science
opportunities and priorities, infrastructure needs, and collaboration opportunities at
local, regional, and international levels.
In preparing this analysis, the committee heard from a broad spectrum of the scientific
and stakeholder communities, and we thank everyone for their thoughts and perspec-
tives (Appendix B). We also thank the over 300 anonymous participants in our commu-
nity questionnaire (Appendix C). Special thanks go to Marc Meloche, David Scott, and
Sandy Bianchini of the Canadian Polar Commission for hosting our committee meet-
ing in Ottawa. On behalf of the entire study team, we also thank the sponsors who
enabled the undertaking of this important analysis. Finally, this report would not have
been possible without the dedication and hard work of the National Research Coun-
cil staff: Lauren Everett and Maggie Walser. We also thank Elizabeth Finkelman, Shelly
Freeland, Rita Gaskins, and Rob Greenway for administrative and logistical support.
Stephanie Pfirman and Henry Huntington, Co-Chairs
Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic
3 IARPC
member agencies / organizations include: the National Science Foundation; the Department
of Commerce; the Department of Defense; the Department of State; the Department of Health and Human
Services; the Department of Homeland Security; Office of Science and Technology Policy; the Department
of Agriculture; the Department of Energy; the Department of the Interior; the Department of Transportation;
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Smithsonian
Institution; and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
viii

Acknowledgments
T
his report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse
perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved
by the NRCs Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review
is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making
its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institu-
tional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The
review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of
the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participa-
tion in their review of this report:
WALEED ABDALATI, University of Colorado Boulder
EDDY CARMACK, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
F. STUART (TERRY) CHAPIN, University of Alaska Fairbanks
BYRON CRUMP, Oregon State University
GAIL FONDAHL, University of Northern British Columbia
DONALD PEROVICH, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Dartmouth College
MARTIN ROBARDS, Wildlife Conservations Society
JULIENNE STROEVE, National Snow and Ice Data Center
ORAN YOUNG, University of California, Santa Barbara
TINGJUN ZHANG, National Snow and Ice Data Center
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and
suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions nor did they see the final
draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John
Walsh, University of Alaska Fairbanks, appointed by the Division on Earth and Life
Studies, who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination
of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all
review comments were carefully considered. The authoring committee also wishes to
thank numerous individuals from a broad spectrum of the scientific and stakeholder
communities (Appendix B). Responsibility for the final content of this report rests en-
tirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
ix


Contents
SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION 15
Study Context and Charge to the Committee, 17
Study Approach and Methodology, 17
Report Organization, 20
2 RATIONALE FOR CONTINUED ARCTIC RESEARCH 23
3 EMERGING QUESTIONS 33
Evolving Arctic, 36
Will Arctic communities have greater or lesser influence on their futures?, 41
Will the land be wetter or drier, and what are the associated implications
for surface water, energy balances, and ecosystems?, 42
How much of the variability of the Arctic system is linked to ocean
circulation?, 45
What are the impacts of extreme events in the new ice-reduced system?, 47
How will primary productivity change with decreasing sea ice and
snow cover?, 50
How will species distributions and associated ecosystem structure
change with the evolving cryosphere?, 52
Hidden Arctic, 56
What surprises are hidden within and beneath the ice?, 57
What is being irretrievably lost as the Arctic changes?, 59
Why does winter matter?, 61
What can break or brake glaciers and ice sheets?, 62
How unusual is the current Arctic warmth?, 64
What is the role of the Arctic in abrupt change?, 67
What has been the Cenozoic evolution of the Arctic Ocean Basin?, 69
Connected Arctic, 71
How will rapid Arctic warming change the jet stream and affect
weather patterns in lower latitudes?, 75
What is the potential for a trajectory of irreversible loss of Arctic
land ice, and how will its impact vary regionally?, 76
xi

CONTENTS
How will climate change affect exchanges between the Arctic Ocean and
subpolar basins?, 78
How will Arctic change affect the long-range transport and persistence of
biota?, 79
How will changing societal connections between the Arctic and the rest
of the world affect Arctic communities?, 82
Managed Arctic, 84
How will decreasing populations in rural villages and increasing urbanization
affect Arctic peoples and societies?, 88
Will local, regional, and international relations in the Arctic move toward
cooperation or conflict?, 90
How can 21st-century development in the Arctic occur without
compromising the environment or indigenous cultures while still
benefiting global and Arctic inhabitants?, 92
How can we prepare forecasts and scenarios to meet emerging
management needs?, 95
What benefits and risks are presented by geoengineering and other
large-scale technological interventions to prevent or reduce climate change
and associated impacts in the Arctic?, 99
Undetermined Arctic, 101
Priority Setting, 104
4 MEETING THE CHALLENGES 111

Enhancing Cooperation, 111
Interagency, 113
International, 113
Interdisciplinary, 115
Intersectoral, 116
Cooperation through Social Media, 116
Sustaining Long-Term Observations, 118
Rationale for Long-Term Observations, 118
Coordinating Long-Term Observation Efforts, 120
Managing and Sharing Information, 124
Preserving the Legacy of Research through Data Preservation and
Dissemination, 124
Creating a Culture of Data Preservation and Sharing, 125
Infrastructure to Ensure Data Flows from Observation to Users, Stakeholders,
and Archives, 126
Data Visualization and Analysis, 129
xii

Contents
Maintaining and Building Operational Capacity, 131

Mobile Platforms, 132
Fixed Platforms and Systems, 137
Remote Sensing, 138
Sensors, 145
Power and Communication, 147
Models in Prediction, Projection, and Re-Analyses, 150
Partnerships with Industry, 151
Growing Human Capacity, 153
Community Engagement, 154
Investing in Research, 157
Comprehensive Systems and Synthesis Research, 157
Non-Steady-State Research, 159
Social Sciences and Human Capacity, 159
Stakeholder-Initiated Research, 160
International Funding Cooperation, 160
Long-Term Observations, 161
5 BUILDING KNOWLEDGE AND SOLVING PROBLEMS 165
REFERENCES 171
APPENDIXES
A Acronyms and Abbreviations 191

B Speaker and Interviewee Acknowledgments 195
C Summary of Questionnaire Responses 199
D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 205
xiii

180 E
160
E
160
W
50
NORTH PACIFIC Bering Sea
N
OCEAN
14
Sea of
0
W
Okhotsk
60
N
UNITED
STATES Chukchi Arc
ti c
(Alaska) Sea Ci
rcl
e
Wrangel
Island 70
N
East
Siberian
CA N A DA Sea
Beaufort New
Sea Siberian
Islands
Banks
Island Laptev
Sea
Victoria ARCTIC OCEAN R U SSI A
Island
Queen
Elizabeth
Islands Severnaya
Zemlya
North
Ellesmere Pole
Island
Kara
80 W Franz Sea
Baffin Josef
Island Baffin Land
Bay
Novaya
80 N Zemlya
Greenland Barents
Svalbard
(DENMARK) (NORWAY) Sea
Greenland
W Sea
60 Labrador
Sea
Jan Mayen
70 N (NORWAY)
FI
NL
Norwegian
SWEDEN
AND
I CEL A N D Sea
60
N
Faroe Islands
(DENMARK) N OR WAY EST.
NORTH Shetland
Islands LAT.
W
ATLANTIC
40
LITH.
North
OCEAN Sea DENMARK
BELARUS
50
N UKRAINE
UNITED POLAND
IRELAND
KINGDOM NETH.
GERMANY MOL.
CZECH V.
BEL. REP. SLO
0 250 500 mi
HUN. ROMANIA
FRANCE AUS.
W
0 250 500 km
20
Scale accurate at 81 N
The Arctic.

Summary
A
s rapid change unfolds throughout the Arctic system, the region is taking on
an increasingly prominent role in national and international affairs. Because of
processes involving ice and snow, climate change here is amplified, thus provid-
ing a bellwether for global warming. Yet the New Arctic, with much reduced ice, chal-
lenges existing scientific understanding of how systems behave. The loss of ice also
opens doors of opportunity. With an abundance of fossil fuel deposits, minerals, and
possible new fisheries, the Arctic attracts attention from industries and nations eager
for new frontiers and opportunities for their economies and peoples. Patterns such as
these reflect the worldwide trends that have led some scientists and commentators to
refer to the current age as the Anthropocene, or epoch of humans.
In response to these changes, the regions indigenous peoples are now exercising
greater political power: The Arctic is at the forefront of evolving governance systems
and cultural innovations compelled by rapid environmental and social changes. Re-
search on the physical, biological, and social Arctic system is a crucial contributor to
understanding the effects of those changes on the entire globe. A deeper understand-
ing, together with stronger science-policy connections, can help inform an evolution
toward sound policies and management.
The United States has a long history of Arctic research, from the first International
Polar Year in 1882, to the establishment of the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory in
Barrow, Alaska, in 1947, to the creation of Arctic research programs at the National Sci-
ence Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Smithsonian
Institution, and other agencies. The most recent International Polar Year, in 2007-2009,
highlighted the significance of Arctic research globally and established a benchmark
for assessing change and unveiling the future challenges facing the Arctic research
community.
In this study, the committee was asked to examine emerging research questions in
the Arctic (see Statement of Task in Box 1.1). Numerous other studies have identified
priority research questions in various fields of Arctic research. Our task was not to du-
plicate these studies but to go beyond them, to identify questions that have arisen as
rapid change has pervaded the Arctic system, that have not yet received the attention
they likely deserve, and/or that can now be addressed given technological advances.

THE ARCTIC IN THE ANTHROPOCENE
In the words of one scientist, we sought the questions that in 5 or 10 years time we
will kick ourselves for not asking now.
With this mandate in mind, we acknowledge the importance of the high-priority exist-
ing questions that others have identified. Those questions remain a high priority, and
nothing in this report is intended to detract from their urgency or significance. We
therefore include examples of the kinds of questions that continue, for good reason, to
motivate Arctic research and the funding thereof.
The selection of emerging questions that we identify and discuss in detail was based on
a substantial foundation of information: a review of existing planning and other docu-
ments that include key research questions; on a workshop held in Anchorage, Alaska,
with over 50 scientists providing ideas from all fields of Arctic research (Appendix B);
on more than 300 responses to our community questionnaire of Arctic researchers
(Appendix C); and on input from scientists, agency personnel, and diplomats gathered
during a committee meeting in Ottawa, Canada, organized by the Canadian Polar
Commission on our behalf.
In addition to identifying the emerging research questions, we also assess what is
needed to address these questions and to remain able to study emerging topics into
the future. Topics here include international and interagency cooperation, investing
in and funding Arctic research, long-term observations, managing and sharing infor-
mation, building operational and human capacity, and acting with knowledge. The
reports goal is not to resolve all of these challenges but rather to identify key gaps
that may hinder the ability to address emerging research needs in the Arctic.
RATIONALE FOR CONTINUED ARCTIC RESEARCH
What happens in the Arctic has far-reaching implications around the world; loss of
snow and ice exacerbates global climate change, including sea level rise. A significant
portion of the worlds fish catch is from Arctic and subarctic waters, and up to 13 per-
cent of the worlds remaining oil is in the Arctic. The iconic cultures and species of the
Arctic capture the imagination of millions of people. The geologic history of the Arctic
may hold vital clues about past mass extinctions and may offer insight about future
ecological concerns. The climate, biology, and society in the Arctic are changing in
rapid, complex, and interactive ways, with effects throughout the region and, increas-
ingly, the globe. If we as a global society are to respond effectively to these challenges,
understanding the Arctic system has never been more important.
The ability to identify and predict the ways in which loss of sea ice affects climate,

Summary
biology, and society will help us better prepare and adapt, in the Arctic and beyond.
Assessing the impacts of industrial activity will facilitate development of appropri-
ate regulatory strategies that deliver economic benefits while minimizing negative
consequences. Studying the ways Arctic peoples respond to social and environmental
change will advance our understanding of societal resilience and the conditions that
foster it, for the Arctic and for human societies elsewhere.
In its deliberations, the committee considered four categories of information. (1) What
we know, which forms the foundation for present response and future research efforts.
A great deal is known about how the Arctic is changing, along with extensive informa-
tion about Arctic conditions in various disciplinary fields. (2) What we know we need
to know includes key questions driving current research, enumerated in many plan-
ning documents and other places, and recognizing how much is at stake. (3) What we
think we dont know (or what some know that others dont ) is an intriguing category of
knowledge that is not widely shared and thus often overlooked, and includes tradi-
tional knowledge, proprietary data, and discipline-specific information that has not
yet crossed over to inform other fields. (4) Finally, what we dont know we dont know is
the realm of surprise, which by definition we cannot describe but to which we need to
remain open, as there will undoubtedly be more surprises to come in the Arctic. This
scheme allowed us to evaluate whether potential research questions met the criteria
to be considered emerging, pointed us to the need for greater sharing of informa-
tion to increase the pool of common knowledge, and reminded us to leave room for
addressing future surprises.
EMERGING QUESTIONS
We present our emerging research questions under five headings: Evolving Arctic,
Hidden Arctic, Connected Arctic, Managed Arctic, and Undetermined Arctic. The lists
of questions under each heading are not intended to be comprehensive or the final
word on the subject, but they illuminate what we need to learn about the Arctic based
on what we already know. They point the way to future research, but they do not imply
any limits on what is needed.
Evolving Arctic
The Arctic is rapidly changing. Climate change has received a great deal of attention
in recent decades, but many of its implications for the Arctic system have yet to be
studied in depth. Arctic societies are also changing rapidly, especially in the political

realm as indigenous peoples achieve greater autonomy in some regions. This section
highlights six emerging questions that span disciplines, fields, and sectors:
Will Arctic communities have greater or lesser influence on their futures?

Many Arctic regions and peoples are experiencing greater political autonomy or
influence, but they are also increasingly subject to the impacts of global markets and
resource demands. How these competing influences will interact with one another is
not clear, but certainly there will be major impacts on Arctic communities.
Will the land be wetter or drier, and what are the associated implications for surface
water, energy balances, and ecosystems?
Degrading permafrost and changing precipitation (amount and phase) will alter the
hydrologic regime on land, but the direction and timing of changeto say nothing
of its implicationsis not yet understood and may vary greatly through space and
perhaps time.
How much of the variability of the Arctic system is linked to ocean circulation?
There is great variability in the currents and conditions that drive Arctic Ocean circula-
tion, and these are changing rapidly as sea ice retreats and Arctic weather patterns
change. The role of Arctic Ocean circulation as a driver of variability throughout the
system is poorly understood.
What are the impacts of extreme events in the new ice-reduced system?
The change in average conditions in the Arctic is well documented, but the role of ex-
treme events and sudden shifts or irreversible changes is not well understood. Forest
fires, storms, rain-on-snow in winter, and other abrupt but powerful events may have
lasting impacts.
How will primary productivity change with decreasing sea ice and snow cover?
Loss of snow and ice means increased sunlight to soils and waters, which should
increase primary productivity. The availability of nutrients and, on land, the water
content of soils may support more productivity or may offset the advantages of more
light. The role of thawing permafrost and increasing active-layer thickness may medi-
ate the trajectory of changes in primary productivity. A more detailed understanding
of the processes resulting from snow and ice loss is needed.

Summary
How will species distributions and associated ecosystem structure change with the
evolving cryosphere?
Changes in the physical environment will affect which species thrive and which fail
under new conditions. Changes in abundance and distribution will affect ecosystem
structure and could lead to cascading effects on ecosystem processes. The limitations
on species adaptations and responses are not yet understood.
Hidden Arctic
Many aspects of the Arctic have been unknowable, in large part because ice cover has
blocked access, presenting a major barrier to research. Loss of sea ice, retreat of gla-
ciers, and technological advances now allow research in new fields, new geographical
areas, and throughout the year. At the same time, rapid change can lead to the loss of
sites, features, and phenomena. This section highlights seven emerging questions span-
ning disciplines, fields, and sectors:
What surprises are hidden within and beneath the ice?

Permafrost holds gas hydrates and preserves organic remains, ice sheets likely hold
records of the past not yet assessed, and sea ice conceals crucial oceanographic pro-
cesses. The opportunity to study all of these holds great promise for new discoveries.
What is being irretrievably lost as the Arctic changes?
Archeological sites are eroding or decomposing as they emerge from permafrost or
under ice. Specialized ecosystems are lost because of sudden physical change or the
loss of rare habitat. Indigenous languages are in danger. An emerging challenge is
how to study that which may soon be gone.
Why does winter matter?
Winter dominates in the Arctic, yet most field campaigns and process studies occur in
the brief summer months. Understanding what happens in winter is essential to un-
derstanding how changes in physical processes during darkness will affect biota and
ecosystems as well as oceanic and atmospheric structure.
What can break or brake glaciers and ice sheets?

Glaciers and ice sheets are currently losing mass throughout the Arctic, but positive
and negative feedbacks that accelerate or retard ice loss and ice flow over various
timescales are not well understood. Some mechanisms appear to accelerate ice loss,

but others may limit the rate of change, and changes in these mechanisms vary with
season, region, and even along a single glacier. Understanding feedbacks is necessary
to project future change, with consequences for sea level rise and more.
How unusual is the current Arctic warmth?

Recent summer sea ice loss in the Arctic has been faster than predicted. Reconstruct-
ing the timing and magnitude of past warm events can help identify mechanisms
that explain rapid change, and provide insight into the future Arctic state, a major
unknown.
What is the role of the Arctic in abrupt change?

Various mechanisms may be responsible for abrupt change, including volcanism, solar
variability, and shifts in ocean currents or modes of natural variability. Examining how
these have occurred in the past may shed light on what may occur in the near future,
with far-reaching implications for humans around the world.
What has been the Cenozoic evolution of the Arctic Ocean Basin?
The geological history of the Arctic Ocean is poorly understood, but may hold clues
to major questions, including the geologic processes that led to the onset of Arctic
Ocean sea ice or the formation of large igneous provinces, and increase our under-
standing of ocean circulation changes. The loss of summer sea ice and improvements
in seabed drilling technology allow new research to examine these and other key
questions.
Connected Arctic
The Arctic system does not exist in isolation, but is connected by air and water cur-
rents, by animal migrations, and by societal interactions with the rest of the world.
Climatic and meteorological connections in particular may have far-reaching implica-
tions globally, for example through rising sea level due to mass loss from land-based
Arctic ice, and through weather patterns affected by sea ice loss and disproportionate
Arctic warming. The experiences of Arctic cultures can inform and be informed by
those of indigenous peoples elsewhere. This section highlights five emerging questions
spanning disciplines, fields, and sectors:
How will rapid Arctic warming change the jet stream and affect weather patterns in
lower latitudes?

Summary
The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere because of ice
and snow loss as well as changes in atmospheric properties. The more rapid Arctic
warming relative to mid-latitudes affects atmospheric circulation throughout the
hemisphere, including the track of the jet stream and the persistence of weather pat-
terns. These mechanisms have extensive effects throughout mid-latitudes and per-
haps beyond.
What is the potential for a trajectory of irreversible loss of Arctic land ice, and how
will its impact vary regionally?
Ice loss from local glaciers and ice caps as well as the Greenland Ice Sheet will cause
sea level rise worldwide, but the rate of loss is difficult to predict. Furthermore, the loss
of gravitational pull from the ice, the rebound of the land underneath, and shifting
ocean currents will affect sea level regionally and globally, but in ways that cannot be
predicted with accuracy.
How will climate change affect exchanges between the Arctic Ocean and subpolar
basins?
The formation of relatively fresh seawater in the Arctic, and its export through Fram
Strait, affects water circulation in the North Atlantic, particularly the formation of
deep water that drives global ocean circulation. Changes in these patterns could have
profound impacts around the world, but our current understanding is insufficient to
predict what is likely to happen.
How will Arctic change affect the long-range transport and persistence of biota?
As Arctic summers warm and the ice-free season lengthens, boreal and subarctic spe-
cies may migrate northward. Whether they can survive in Arctic conditions remains to
be seen, but changes in distributions of plankton, plants, insects, fishes, birds, mam-
mals, and other life forms are likely to affect many aspects of Arctic ecosystems, includ-
ing interactions with the physical environment. Species will move at different rates,
so there is the potential for entirely new communities and species interactions. Some
species may not survive the loss of their habitat in the Arctic.
How will changing societal connections between the Arctic and the rest of the world
affect Arctic communities?
Most political and transportation links in the Arctic flow north-south, not east-west.
Increasing southern interest in the Arctic will affect Arctic communities through the
influx of new people, new cultures, new ideas, and new opportunities. Sharing of expe-

riences among indigenous peoples worldwide may also facilitate sharing of effective
adaptations.
Managed Arctic
Humans have lived in the Arctic for millennia, shaping their surroundings and mak-
ing use of what the Arctic has to offer. In recent decades, the human environment has
shifted greatly, including political and economic integration with nation-states and
less obvious trends such as urbanization of Arctic peoples. Looking forward, the Arctic
is likely to see large-scale human activity and interventions, including increasing inter-
est in resource development and potentially some forms of geoengineering. Whether
these changes will lead to conflict or cooperation remains to be seen, but research on
these topics is essential to understand the drivers of change and their implications
near and far. This section highlights five emerging questions spanning disciplines, fields,
and sectors:
How will decreasing populations in rural villages and increasing urbanization affect
Arctic peoples and societies?
Urbanization is a worldwide trend, but it has been studied little in the Arctic. Towns
and cities play increasingly important roles in indigenous intellectual, artistic, eco-
nomic, and political activity. At the same time, rural villages remain important sites of
traditional activities not easily transferred to cities.
Will local, regional, and international relations in the Arctic move toward coopera-
tion or conflict?
Potential resource development, claims on extended continental shelves or shipping
routes, and increasing interest from non-Arctic countries all create the potential for
conflict. On the other hand, most potential issues are covered by existing international
arrangements, and the Arctic Council has admitted more observers. The interplay of
these trends remains to be seen.
How can 21st-century development in the Arctic occur without compromising

the environment or indigenous cultures while still benefiting global and Arctic
inhabitants?
Interest in mineral, petroleum, and other resource development and increasing tour-
ism are likely to grow throughout much of the Arctic in the next few decades. This
would provide revenues and other benefits locally and nationally, but it also poses

Summary
environmental and cultural risks. Capitalizing on opportunities while reducing risks is a

crucial task at the intersection of science, industry, and governance.
How can we prepare forecasts and scenarios to meet emerging management needs?
The Arctic environment, including its weather, snow conditions, and ice conditions, is
changing rapidly. Past observations and experiences are not as reliable in predicting
the future as they once were, at a time when there exists an ever greater need for fore-
casts and scenarios from daily to decadal time frames. Key research topics in this area
include probing the limits of predictability and connecting user needs with specific
forecast products.
What benefits and risks are presented by geoengineering and other large-scale
technological interventions to prevent or reduce climate change and associated
impacts in the Arctic?
Global and Arctic-targeted geoengineering in various forms has been suggested as
both a short-term and a long-term response to climate change. The societal and envi-
ronmental implications of various ideas have not been explored in depth, especially in
the Arctic, which may experience greater inadvertent effects than in other regions.
Undetermined Arctic
Leaving room for new ideas and making it possible to identify them when the need
arises require a combination of research (to better assess new topics), long-term ob-
servations (to identify changes and surprises without delay), and flexibility in funding
(to be able to move quickly when a significant event occurs). We need to be prepared
to look at the Arctic in new ways and to respond accordingly.
MEETING THE CHALLENGES
Identifying research questions is essential, but conducting the actual research and
making full use of the results requires more than just the questions. The committee
considered various logistical, technological, and other kinds of support that will im-
prove our ability to address emerging questions. In many cases, such resources apply
equally well to existing research questions and thus serve Arctic research in general.
We did not assess resource questions exhaustively, but we raise them here for further
consideration by agencies and others seeking to increase Arctic research capability in
ways that effectively address the most pressing questions.

Enhancing Cooperation
No single agency, organization, or even country can take on all research topics in the
Arctic. Some research questions are too broad, or involve such extensive field efforts,
that they cannot be resolved solely by researchers from a single country or supported
by a single funding source. Cooperation is essential: among researchers, between
agencies, among nations, across disciplines, between Arctic residents and visiting sci-
entists, and with the private sector. There are good but relatively rare examples of such
cooperation in each category, but obstacles often remain high.
Sustaining Long-Term Observations
Long-term observational data are essential for detecting change and for putting
research findings into context. There are, however, few long-term observation efforts
under way and too little coordination among those that do exist. Instead, available
records are often a collection of ad hoc efforts conducted with different temporal
resolutions, in different areas, and for different purposes. It is thus difficult to distin-
guish large-scale patterns from localized ones or to connect findings in one discipline
with those from another. The necessary exchanges of information have yet to become
routine practice, although some efforts have been made in that direction.
Managing and Sharing Information
Data are meaningful only if they can be easily accessed. Our understanding of the
Arctic as a system has evolved through the capability to compare datasets from dispa-
rate fields and regions, to see connections, commonalities, and systematic differences.
But data management to date has often been left to individuals or to separate efforts
depending on agency, program, discipline, or other parameters. Data management re-
quirements, too, have often been un- or under-funded, resulting in poor quality meta-
data, a lack of long-term archiving, and/or other shortcomings that greatly reduce the
utility and value of hard-won and expensively produced data. Recently, more attention
has been given to data management needs and challenges, so there is progress upon
which to build. Researchers and stakeholders would benefit from continuing this ef-
fort, along with progress in techniques for using and visualizing data so that they can
be used more readily and more often, both by scientists and by others with an interest
or a stake in the Arctic.
10

Summary
Maintaining and Building Operational Capacity
New technologies allow new approaches to conduct research in many fields. Among
the most promising recent developments is a host of autonomous mobile sensors
for the ocean and atmosphere. These can be deployed relatively easily and inexpen-
sively, and thus promise to alleviate the limitations of icebreaker access or aircraft time
(though range is still limited for many such devices). New remote sensing capabilities
are also being developed to measure features of the Arctic system that required in situ
observation in the past. It is also important to sustain the capacity that exists, such as
at research stations and by satellites. Even with new developments, there is still a need
for heavy-duty icebreaking capability, which at present is a critical weakness of U.S.
Arctic research capacity. Improvements in power generation for remote sensor ar-
rays, and better broadband communication for transmitting and sharing data, are also
important for increasing our ability to conduct research and observations in the Arctic.
Improvements in modeling and forecasting will not only provide a clearer window
to the future, but will also better guide research needs and help determine optimal
placement of field sites. The increasing role of industry in the Arctic creates opportuni-
ties for private sector involvement, for example, through public-private partnerships.
Growing Human Capacity
Arctic research depends on sufficient human capacity, including scientists trained in

the necessary fields who are capable of interdisciplinary collaboration and working
across the Arctic. During the International Polar Year, concerted efforts were made to
involve young researchers, and those opportunities helped to train the next genera-
tion of scientists in Arctic research. Arctic residents can offer a great deal, as well, and
the capacity for local involvement in all stages of research can be improved. There
are many good examples of such collaborations, but also apparent are indications of
research fatigue among those who have been the subject of, or otherwise involved
in, many studies without seeing a direct return for their efforts. For Arctic residents, a
crucial aspect of human capacity is the ability to act on what is learned from research,
and to enhance the adaptive capacity of communities and societies as they face rapid
and far-reaching changes. Making connections between research activities and real-
world challenges requires more effort on all sides.
11

Investing in Research
The research that gets done is the research that gets funded. Funding mechanisms
and program objectives perhaps require re-evaluation to determine whether they
are in fact addressing high-priority questions and pressing needs. Societys ability to
address emerging research questions in the Arctic is closely tied to the way research
funding is organized. Other approaches are used in different countries, and the trad-
eoffs involved are worth considering to assess whether some of those approaches
might be adopted or adapted in the United States. Systems research and synthesis
research often require more than individual projects, and thus can be difficult to carry
out effectively when proposals are considered individually and projects are conducted
independently over short time periods. Funding non-steady state research will be nec-
essary to better understand the dynamics of thresholds, resilience, and transformation
in a rapidly changing Arctic. Research ideas from stakeholders often fall outside the
priorities identified by the scientific community, and thus may be less likely to receive
funding, even if they address key needs. Additionally, long-term observations are often
difficult to fund as the value of such records is often not realized until many years later.
Mechanisms to coordinate funding from multiple nations are obscure, time-consum-
ing, and fraught with difficulty, leading to reduced international collaboration. The role
of the private sector in research is also increasing and could be better integrated with
publicly-funded research.
BUILDING KNOWLEDGE AND SOLVING PROBLEMS
Research activities are sometimes separated into categories of basic and applied
science, or curiosity-driven and problem-oriented research. These categories are not
mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. Improving the ways scientific results are
used to inform policy and management processes is important. Collaboration is neces-
sary, not just among scientific disciplines or between scientists and those who live
in the Arctic, but also with decision makers, to better understand what they require
and how scientific results are factored with other considerations to produce decision
outcomes. The United States has demonstrated the will to devote resources to Arctic
research. An equal will to apply the results of research is essential, as is a continued
commitment to studying what exists, what is emerging, and what awaits us in the
Arctic.
12


Aurora borealis, base camp, Baffin Island, Arctic Canada. Photo credit: M. Kennedy, Earth Vision Trust

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
O
nce ice-bound, difficult to access, and largely ignored by the rest of the
worldliterally off the map in some projectionsthe Arctic is now front
and center in the midst of many important questions facing the world today.
Our daily weather, what we eat, and coastal flooding are all interconnected with the
future of the Arctic. Looking within the Arctic, 2012 was an astounding year for Arctic
change. The summer sea ice volume smashed previous records, losing approximately
75 percent of its value since 1980 and half of its areal coverage (Jeffries et al., 2013). In
2012 Greenland experienced the largest melt extent of the satellite era (the past 35
years), with melting occurring over 97 percent of the ice sheets surface, continuing
a multidecadal trend of increasing summer melt and mass loss (Tedesco et al., 2013).
Receding ice caps in Arctic Canada are now exposing land surfaces that had been
continuously ice covered for more than 40,000 years (Miller et al., 2013). Dozens of
Alaska villages face pressing threats from riverbank and coastal erosion as waterflow
patterns change, sea ice retreats, storms increase, and sea level rises (GAO, 2003). Local
and remote effects of Arctic sea ice decline on weather and climate are being explored
(Vihma, 2014). All of these pose challenges for human response, from policy to prac-
tice. Better understanding can help improve these responses, if science and scientific
results are communicated effectively to those in positions to apply them.
The Arctic can be defined in astronomical, cryospheric, biological, cultural, and politi-
cal ways. None of these definitions are universally suitable. For the purposes of this
report, which focuses on emerging research questions in the Arctic, we define the
Arctic as the northern region where physical, biological, social, economic, political,
and other changes are leading to the emergence of new characteristics, relationships,
and systems. Specifically, we focus on the area where change is rapid and far reaching,
overturning the status quo.
The changes taking place in the Arctic, from physical, biological, and social shifts
driven by worldwide human activity to economic expansion and technological ad-
vances, are hallmarks of the Anthropocene epoch (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000; Revkin,
1992), in which human activity is a dominant force on the global environment. It
seems appropriate, therefore, to characterize a report on emerging research questions
as a response to the advent of the Anthropocene, whose causes are ultimately largely
the same as those driving emerging research needs.
15

Many of these changes have been expected based on research conducted over the
past several decades, including under the Study of Environmental ARctic CHange
(SEARCH) and during the International Polar Year (IPY) of 2007-2009 (NRC, 2012a). Nu-
merous existing questions remain unanswered, however, and they require continued
research support, as the committee heard time and again from the scientific commu-
nity. In this report, we reiterate some of those most frequently and fervently expressed,
but our primary task is to highlight the new questions that have emerged in the wake
of recent, and expectation of further, rapid Arctic change, as well as new capabilities to
address them.
The Arctic serves as a bellwether for rapid environmental change and its impacts,
and has a critical role in the regulation of global climate. The emerging questions
presented in this report can teach us about the future Arctic and its role in the global
system. Additionally, the way Arctic researchers prepare to address these emerging
questions is likely to serve as a model for science globally. Because changes in the
Arctic are happening fast and the signal emerges clearly from the noise, in many ways
the science of change is currently easier to study in the Arctic than in most places.
Arctic science is poised to identify and address emerging questions now, whereas
it may be decades before scientists agree on analogous questions for other regions
of the world. Arctic research has an opportunity to be the global leader in develop-
ing a new science of the dynamics of change. The focus of this report, as outlined in
the Statement of Task (Box 1.1), is on these emerging research questions. Research
questions may be emerging for various reasons. Some of these questions are ones that
we are only now able to examine because reduced snow cover and sea ice facilitate
access. Others are questions that can only now be addressed because of advances in
analytical tools and/or new observing platforms. New technologies and access to new
areas allow us to conduct studies that simply were not possible a decade ago. Rapid
environmental and social changes pose new research challenges that did not exist
in the past. A growing emphasis on interdisciplinary work, sustainability science, and
decision support inevitably leads to connections that were not made earlier. New un-
derstanding provides insights that lead to questions that could not have arisen before.
Other, possibly more important, questions are those that we had not even thought of
asking before, and those that only became apparent as a result of ongoing research
and rapid change.
We need to think over the long term. We cannot predict with certainty how the Arctic
system will evolve during the next 10 to 20 years, but it is urgent that we gain our
best estimate of its future state. To even begin to try, we also need to look far beyond
the next decade or two, to potential endpoints of the current trajectory of change.
The Arctic is currently in a transient state. Climate is changing rapidly, and the Arctic is
16

Introduction
warming faster than the rest of the planet in all seasons. In response to that warming,
the physical and biological components of the Arctic system are continually adjusting.
At the same time, the social, political, and economic components of the Arctic system
are also changing, in part in response to a changing Arctic environment that is more
accessible than at any period in the post-industrialized era, but also in response to
related and unrelated geopolitical pressures. As a result, even well-established multi-
decadal trends may be misleading. Records of past Arctic climates exhibit threshold
behavior, with abrupt and profound changes in state that occurred within a decade,
and suggest that future abrupt changes are possible in a warming climate regime
(Lenton, 2012). Consequently, we need to consider not just the implications of current
trends, but also our ability to predict unexpected departures from those trends and
their subsequent implications.
Our task in this report is to assess what we can do now in Arctic research that is new
and to identify those questions that we will regret having ignored if we do not invest
in answering them soon.
STUDY CONTEXT AND CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
This report was prepared by the Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the
Arctic, appointed by the National Research Council (NRC) in response to a request
from the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC), the Department of Energy (DOE),
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the
Smithsonian Institution to provide guidance on future research questions in the Arctic
over the next 10 to 20 years (Box 1.1). The committees goal was to provide concise
guidance for U.S. Arctic research so that research is targeted on critical scientific and
societal questions and conducted as effectively as possible. In doing so, the committee
considered the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) to be the main
audience for this report. Thus the high level concepts listed in the Table of Contents
(particularly in Chapters 3 and 4) are intended to be priorities for IARPC as a whole,
with the understanding that individual agencies will prioritize investments in accor-
dance with their specific mission and goals.
STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic was formed in early
2013 and completed its work over the course of the next 14 months. It held four meet-
17

BOX 1.1 COMMITTEE ON EMERGING RESEARCH QUESTIONS IN THE ARCTIC

STATEMENT OF TASK
This activity is designed to provide guidance on future research questions in the Arctic over
the next 10-20 years, identifying the key scientific questions that are emerging in different realms
of Arctic science and exploring both disciplinary realms (e.g., marine, terrestrial, atmosphere,
cryosphere, and social sciencesa) and crosscutting realms (e.g., integrated systems science and
sustainability science). Based on the emerging research questions, the study will also help identify
research infrastructure needs (e.g., observation networks, computing and data management,
ship requirements, shore facilities, etc.) and collaboration opportunities. Attention will be given
to assessing needs where there may be a mismatch between rates of change and the pace of
scientific research. Although it is understood that there is no one answer, the committee is asked
to explore how agency decision makers might achieve balance in their research portfolios and
associated investments (e.g., what are some of the challenges of trying to do both problem-
driven research and curiosity-driven research?). The goal is to guide future directions in U.S. Arctic
research so that research is targeted on critical scientific and societal questions and conducted
as effectively as possible.
The study committee will:
B riefly summarize the rationale for continued U.S. research in the Arctic, including how
climate change, together with other stressors, stands to affect the region in the coming
decades and how changes in the Arctic region will affect other parts of the world.
Identify, incorporating community input, the key scientific questions that are emerging in
different realms of Arctic science, with attention to both disciplinary realms (e.g., marine,
terrestrial, atmosphere, cryosphere, and social sciences) and crosscutting realms (e.g.,
ings during which it gathered community input and reviewed relevant literature and
other information, including previous reports from numerous regional, national, and
international agencies, organizations, and other institutions with active research pro-
grams in the Arctic. To inform its analysis, the committee organized an interdisciplin-
ary workshop to begin identifying emerging research questions and technology and
infrastructure needs. The workshop was held in May 2013 in Anchorage, Alaska, and
included approximately 50 participants. A second workshop, hosted by the Canadian
Polar Commission, was held in September 2013 in Ottawa, Ontario. Approximately 45
people participated in the Ottawa meeting. The participants of the Anchorage and
Ottawa meetings are listed in Appendix B. The committee gathered additional com-
18

Introduction
BOX 1.1 CONTINUED
integrated systems science and sustainability science). As possible, discuss or indicate a

general sense of priorityb within the primary areas.
Identify the types of research infrastructure, data management, technological develop-
ments, and logistical support needed to facilitate the research and monitoring efforts
that are needed to address the key scientific questions, including discussion of possible
approaches to sustain long-term observations in the Arctic.
Identify needs and opportunities for improved coordination in Arctic research among the
different U.S. federal and state agencies and for improved international collaboration in
Arctic research.
Explore how agency decision makers might balance their research programs and associ-
ated investments (e.g., balancing work done to respond to urgent global change concerns
versus work to advance fundamental knowledge and discovery). In other words, what are
some of the challenges of trying to do both problem-driven research and curiosity-driven
research?
a To provide some boundary on the committees discussion of emerging research questions, if health
is addressed it should be limited to potential health issues related to environmental or climate change.
b The concept of priorities varies based on audience. That is, different factors are important to differ-
ent audiences (importance to Arctic residents, to global population, to the science community attempting
to understand the global climate system, or to decision makers working on economic development). In
this study, the committee will consider the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) to be
the primary audience for its report, recognizing that even within IARPC there are differing missions and
thus differing needs. The intent is not to provide a literal ranking of research priorities but to provide some
scale by which recipients of the report can better judge importance or time-relevance among the identi-
fied questions.
munity input through the use of an online community questionnaire1 (Appendix C),
which received over 300 responses and a series of interviews with 15 Arctic research-
ers (Appendix B). Starting from the research questions identified in previous reports
and by workshop, interview, and questionnaire participants, the committee used its
expert judgment and deliberation to identify important emerging questions.
1 The
questionnaire was not intended to be a scientific sampling, nor was any statistical analysis
performed.
19

REPORT ORGANIZATION
Chapter 2 is the Rationale for Continued Arctic Research, situating this reports emphasis
on emerging research questions in the wider context of Arctic research accomplish-
ments, needs, and support. It is essential to recognize the value of ongoing Arctic
research and the priorities identified in many venues, so that this reports emphasis on
emerging questions does not overshadow the significance of existing research activi-
ties and plans.
In Chapter 3, we present Emerging Research Questions in five categories, noting impor-
tant existing questions, and recognizing the various ways the Arctic and our under-
standing of the Arctic are changing. The Evolving Arctic focuses on the transition to
the new normal of reduced ice and snow and the cascade of impacts this will have
on systems that depend on frozen ground and water. The Hidden Arctic explores what
could be found as ice barriers diminishand what could be forever lost amid rapid
change. The Connected Arctic addresses the fact that changes occurring in the Arctic
do not stay in the Arctic, but affect the rest of the Northern Hemisphere and beyond
through rising sea levels, an altered jet stream, changes in the large-scale ocean circu-
lation, invading species of plants and animals, transported chemicals and aerosols, and
outside pressures on Arctic residents. Questions of societal changes, conflict and co-
operation, and proactive vs. reactive decision making are raised in the Managed Arctic
section. The Undetermined Arctic is concerned with how we can be prepared to detect
and respond to the unexpected.
Equally important, Chapter 4 describes Meeting the Challenges, addressing what is
needed to leverage efficiencies in making Arctic research happen, from collabora-
tion and coordination, to sustained observations, building human and operational
capacity, making information actionable as well as accessible, and innovative funding
approaches.
The report concludes with Chapter 5, Building Knowledge and Solving Problems, which
highlights the importance of connecting Arctic research with real-world issues.
20


Supraglacial water channels and small surface ponds on the flanks of Russell glacier, a land terminating
glacier on Southwest Greenland. Photo credit: Perry Spector

CHAPTER TWO
Rationale for Continued Arctic

Research
W
hat happens in the Arctic has far-reaching implications around the world.
Loss of snow and ice exacerbates climate change and is the largest contribu-
tor to expected global sea level rise over the next century. Ten percent of
the worlds fish catches come from Arctic and subarctic waters (Lindholt, 2006). The
U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that up to 13 percent of the worlds estimated
remaining oil reserves are in the Arctic (Gautier et al., 2009). The iconic cultures and
species of the Arctic capture the imagination of millions of people (ABA, 2013). The
geologic history of the Arctic may hold vital clues about volcanic eruptions and
their impacts on ocean chemistry and atmospheric aerosols, including the release of
large volumes of ash that are thought to have caused mass extinctions in the distant
past (Grasby et al., 2011). The physical, biological, and social systems of the Arctic are
changing in rapid, complex, and interactive ways, with effects throughout the region
and, increasingly, the globe. If we as a global society are to respond effectively to these
challenges, understanding the Arctic system has never been more critical and thus
Arctic research has never been more important.
The ability to identify and predict the ways in which loss of sea ice affects climate,
biology, and society will help us better prepare and adapt, in the Arctic and beyond.
Assessing the impacts of industrial activity will help us develop appropriate regulatory
strategies that reap economic benefits while minimizing negative consequences, les-
sons that can be applied far and wide.
Studying the ways Arctic peoples respond to social and environmental change will
help us better understand societal resilience and the conditions that foster it, a press-
ing challenge everywhere. Understanding how a fast-warming Arctic may contribute
to increased extreme weather events will help to evaluate risk outside the Arctic.
These and many other key questions have been identified over the years in various
planning documents and other efforts to guide Arctic research. The committee ana-
lyzed many strategic research planning documents produced since the conclusion of
the International Polar Year in 2009. These reports included many recommendations
for future Arctic research. The sheer number of reports, and the hundreds of partici-
23

BOX 2.1 SELECTED RECENT (2013) DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ARCTIC
Winter rain, an unusual event in the high north, drives animal numbers on a Norwegian
Arctic island into decline, showing that extreme climate events can affect an entire community
of vertebrates (Hansen et al., 2013).
Within the past 5 years, nine of the 14 villages in Nunavik in northernmost Quebec have
had to install cooling systems at community ice hockey arenas to keep the rinks cold during
winter (Klein, 2013).
Tracer results from the Greenland Ice Sheet drainage system indicate evolution from a slow
process to a fast channelized system over the course of the melt season (Chandler et al., 2013).
Ancient camels may have occupied Arctic forests 3.5 million years ago, a time when the
region was densely forested and considerably warmer than today (Rybczynski et al., 2013).
One of the key features of amplified Arctic warming is that winter warming exceeds summer
warming by at least a factor of 4, according to model simulations (Bintanja and van der Linden,
2013).
Dynamic bacterial communities associated with snowpacks may be active in supraglacial ni-
trogen cycling and capable of rapid responses to changes induced by snowmelt (Hell et al., 2013).
An isolated population of Arctic foxes that dines only on marine animals seems to be slowly
succumbing to mercury poisoning (Bocharova et al., 2013).
The Arctic Council agreed to expand to include six new countries with permanent observer
status in the Arctic Council: China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, India, and Italy (Myers, 2013).
Pliocene polar amplification could be related to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, ac-
cording to model simulations (Ballantyne et al., 2013).
ExxonMobil and Rosneft (a Russian oil company) reached an agreement to create a $450-
million Arctic Research Center (OGJ Editors, 2013).
Sediments from Lake Elgygytgyn in northeastern Russia reveal that 3.6 million years ago the
Arctics summers were 8 C warmer than they are today (Brigham-Grette et al., 2013).
pants involved in their preparation, testifies to the strength of community concern

and need for deeper knowledge.
In crafting a research strategy for the next 10 to 20 years, it is essential to assess
the questions that are emerging in Arctic research, from our increased understand-
ing, from the rapid changes under way, from new opportunities to study areas and
phenomena that have remained hidden until now, and from new needs to manage
how we respond to the developing Arctic. These questions are addressed in the next
chapter. The significance of the emerging questions does not in any way reduce the
importance of the existing questions that currently guide Arctic research. On the con-
trary, the ability to ask emerging questions depends on past results as well as ongoing
pursuits to address important issues in Arctic research (e.g., Box 2.1). With this in mind,
24

Rationale for Continued Arctic Research
BOX 2.1 CONTINUED
Shifts in sea ice cover could affect oceanic emissions of dimethylsulphide (DMS)a climate-
relevant trace gas generated by ice algae and phytoplankton that acts as a nucleus for cloud
droplet formation. Observations and model results suggest that the emission of DMS will increase
in the Arctic as the seasonal sea ice cover recedes. If it escapes to the atmosphere, it could aug-
ment cloud formation and cool the Arctic climate (Levasseur, 2013).
A Greenland Grand Canyon was discovered. It is 50 percent longer than Arizonas 277-mile
Grand Canyon, but not as deepranging from 650 feet to about 2,600 feet (200 to 800 meters)
(Bamber et al., 2013).
Analysis suggests wild food consumption, as practiced in two isolated First Nations commu-
nities of northwestern Ontario, can increase blood levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs),
which provide a number of important metabolic benefits that could allow the prevention/
treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, which has risen dramatically in northern communities
(Seabert et al., 2013).
The first meeting of the Arctic Circle, a group established to facilitate dialogue and build
relationships among businesses and those in the Arctic to address rapid changes in the Arctic,
takes place in Iceland.a
The genome of a young boy buried at Malta near Lake Baikal in eastern Siberia some 24,000
years ago shows that during the last Ice Age, people from Europe had reached farther east across
Eurasia than previously supposed (Wade, 2013).
Crusts deposited on underwater rocks by coralline algae record changes in sea ice over the
past 650 years. They show that sea ice decline since 1850 is unprecedented in the record (Halfar
et al., 2013).
aSee http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674arctic_circle_conference_attracts_hun-
dreds_to_iceland/.
the identified categories of knowledge both underscore what is important and point
toward what is truly emerging, as well as what will be needed to support research in
these emerging areas. Whereas previous reports focused on what we know we need
to know, this report also considers what we may not yet recognize as unknown.
We know the Arctic system is warming rapidly (see Figure 2.1). We also know that sea
ice is dramatically thinner and less extensive and that snow on Arctic land areas is dis-
appearing ever earlier in summer. We know Arctic albedo is decreasing, as it shifts from
the high values of ice and snow to the darker grays, greens, browns, blacks, and blues
of soil, vegetation, and water. We know Arctic communities are feeling the stress of
environmental and social change in all facets of their lives. We also know we have not
sufficiently sampled much of the Arctic during the long winter darkness. The observed
Arctic impacts attributed to climate change are summarized in Table 2.1.
25

FIGURE 2.1 Annual near-surface air temperature changes north of 30 N are mapped as the average tem-
perature measured between 2001 and 2012 relative to the average temperature for the 30-year baseline
period 1971 to 2000. Arctic temperature increases of 2 to 3 C, compared with the smaller increases (0.5 to
1 C) in mid-latitude regions, exemplify Arctic amplification of global climate change. Higher temperatures
in all parts of the Arctic indicate a response to global change rather than to natural regional variability.
SOURCE: Reproduced with permission from Jeffries et al. (2013). Copyright 2013, American Institute of
Physics.
These knowns are important and establish the foundation for what we do next (see
Box 2.2). But there are other categories to consider as well, as indicated by the matrix
in Table 2.2, that was inspired by R.D. Laing (1970):
If I dont know I dont know

I think I know
If I dont know I know
I think I dont know
26

Most of the reports we examined focus on what we know we need to know, following
on as the consequences of what we know. We know that social and environmental
changes are leading to increasing urbanization, but we do not know the conse-
quences of this evolution. Warming promotes northward habitat migration and
changing seasonal conditions, leading to new hotspots and dead zones in biological
productivity, but we do not know where or when. We know that some of the thresh-
olds we are reaching and crossing have analogs deep in the geological record, such as
life in a previously ice-diminished and more acidic Arctic Ocean, and we need to ex-
plore those system circumstances and responses. We know that we have not profiled
or sampled much of the central Arctic Ocean sediments and that, once we do, there
are sure to be surprises in our understanding of geologic evolution.
Things we think we dont know are in an important category that is often neglected
in scoping out research strategies. This includes things that are known in one com-
munity, but largely unknown in others. Traditional knowledge is one example: It has
guided the livelihood of indigenous peoples for thousands of years, yet most people
who do not live in the Arctic are unaware of its critical observations and known
interconnections. Similarly, academic scientific findings, including analyses and inter-
pretations, are often reported in venues and formats that are specific to one discipline
and are not accessible or usable by others. Industry research is often proprietary, but
it could help answer questions if it were widely accessible. Questions posed by stake-
holders and decision makers, as they try to meet the challenges of the changing Arctic,
are also important indicators of system responses that are not known by many in the
academic Arctic research community.
Things we dont know we dont know are things that we cannot foresee at this point in
time. They include aspects of the system that we have not yet considered, as well as
surprise events after which nothing is the same. An example of this was the dramatic
loss of the sea ice cover in the summer of 2007 to 23 percent below the previous
record low in 2005 (Stroeve et al., 2008), followed by another dramatic decline 5 years
later in 2012 to 50 percent of the sea ice cover of only 30 years before (NSIDC1). To pre-
pare for these events, we need to understand the present system, imagine the what
ifs, and be positioned to detect and respond. To understand the system, investments
need to be made in fundamental, exploratory, and process research. To be in position
to detect these changes and critical circumstances, we need comprehensive, long-
term observing capabilities coupled with periodic snapshots of the entire system to
establish baselines, as we did during the International Polar Year (2007-2009). And we
1
See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonal-
minimum.
27

TABLE 2.1 Observed Impacts of Climate Change in the Arctic Reported in the
Literature Since the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC
Category Examples
Snow and Ice Decreasing sea ice cover in summer (high confidence, major contribution from
Rivers and Lakes climate change).
Floods and Drought Reduction in ice volume in glaciers (high confidence, major contribution from
climate change).
Decreasing snow cover extent (medium confidence, major contribution from
climate change).
Widespread permafrost degradation, especially in the southern Arctic (high
confidence, major contribution from climate change).
Increased river discharge for large circumpolar rivers (19972007) (low
confidence, major contribution from climate change).
Increased winter minimum river flow (medium confidence, major contribution
from climate change).
Increased lake water temperatures (19852009) and prolonged ice-free
seasons (medium confidence, major contribution from climate change).
Disappearance of thermokarst lakes due to permafrost degradation in the low
Arctic. New lakes created in areas of formerly frozen peat. (high confidence,
major contribution from climate change).
need to be able to deploy resources quickly once change or an event is detected. This
means that both logistics and funding need to be more flexible in terms of timing and
also spatial distribution, from local to national and international scales.
The examples in Table 2.2 are illustrative of progress in understanding, issues of cur-
rent research, informational obstacles that impede progress, and sources of surprises.
The table is organized in the following categories: (a) why Arctic research is important
28

TABLE 2.1 Continued

Category Examples
Terrestrial Ecosystems Increased shrub cover in tundra in North America and Eurasia (high confidence,
major contribution from climate change).
Advance of Arctic tree line in latitude and altitude (medium confidence, major
contribution from climate change).
Changed breeding area and population size of subarctic birds, due to snowbed
reduction and/or tundra shrub encroachment (medium confidence, major
Loss of snowbed ecosystems and tussock tundra (high confidence, major
Impacts on tundra animals from increased ice layers in snow pack, following
rain-on-snow events (medium confidence, major contribution from climate
change).
Coastal Erosion and Increased coastal erosion (medium confidence, major contribution from climate
Marine Ecosystems change).
Negative effects on non-migratory species (high confidence, major contribution
from climate change).
Decreased reproductive success in seabirds (medium confidence, major
Food Production and Impact on livelihoods of indigenous peoples, beyond effects of economic and
Livelihoods sociopolitical changes (medium confidence, major contribution from climate
change).
Increased shipping traffic across the Bering Strait (medium confidence, major
SOURCE: Adapted from IPCC, 2014, Summary for Policy Makers.
(knowns are what we have learned), (b) why emerging questions are worth thinking
about (know we need to know are where the next discoveries lie), (c) why we need
continued research support and enhanced collaboration (things we think we dont
know are holding us back if we continue to ignore them), and (d) why its essential to
be open to new things (what we dont know we dont know is where the surprises will
come from).
29

TABLE 2.2 Examples from the Four Categories of Knowledge Described in the text
(a) Knowns (b) Know We Need to Know
Arctic is warming, more warming is likely Identify biodiversity hotspots

Changes in phase (increased ice loss/ Greater understanding of teleconnections
increased permafrost thawing) Adaptation and mitigation strategies
Albedo reduction, reduced summer sea ice Sustainable development and resilience
extent and thickness, reduced snow cover strategies
Reduced glacier mass, leading to increased Seasonality of Arctic systems
sea level rise and changes in hydrologic Cumulative impacts of environmental and social
cycle change
Increased greening Implications of urbanization
Increased variability and disturbances in Impact of Arctic change on global climate
Arctic systems change
Increased accessibility and activity (e.g., Impact of ice loss and calving from Greenland on
resource exploration, shipping, tourism) rate and magnitude of global sea level rise
Changes in social, economic, cultural, and Arctic atmospheric connections to mid-latitude
political systems weather
Ocean acidification Community migration
Threats to food security Rate of change and associated implications
Winter and spring data are lacking How to re-think Arctic engineering
Landscape evolution
Oceanic restructuring
Changes in marine and terrestrial primary
production
(c) Think We Dont Know (d) Dont Know We Dont Know
Knowledge that is known to one group but not Unanticipated and/or extreme environmental
others, including: changes and events
Traditional knowledge Knowledge that will emerge through:
Industry knowledge Monitoring and long-term observations
Discipline-specific knowledge Basic research and process studies
Stakeholder and policy maker information Model-observation intercomparison
needs Analysis of outliers in paleo data
Unpublished or unarchived data Systems research and research at system
interfaces
Exploratory research
Understanding system thresholds and transitions
Rapid response capability
30

BOX 2.2 ARCTIC-RELATED FINDINGS IN CLIMATE CHANGE 2014: IMPACTS, ADAPTATION,

AND VULNERABILITY
The physical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts of climate change in the Arctic have
to be seen in the context of often interconnected factors that include not only environmental
changes caused by drivers other than climate change but also demography, culture, and eco-
nomic development.
The rapid rate at which climate is changing in the polar regions will impact natural and so-
cial systems (high confidence) and may exceed the rate at which some of their components can
successfully adapt (low to medium confidence).
Impacts on the health and well-being of Arctic residents from climate change are significant
and projected to increaseespecially for many indigenous peoples (high confidence) (IPCC,
2014).
31

Summertime heating at 71 N on the central Baffin Island plateau in 2009 was sufficient to produce deep
convection with accompanying thunder and lightning, events that were nearly unheard of in earlier
decades. Photo credit: Gifford Miller

CHAPTER THREE
Emerging Questions
A
ll global climate models forced with increasing greenhouse gases project that
the Arctic will continue to warm at a faster rate than that of the rest of the
globe, with concomitant losses in the ice and snow (IPCC, 2013) that form the
fabric of the Arctic as we have known it (Figure 3.1). In each of the sections that follow,
we identify and discuss in detail emerging research questions (those that we are only
now able to ask, because they address newly recognized phenomena, use new tech-
nology or access, or build on recent results and insights). Research questions emerging
from recent change and future projections include understanding the evolving Arctic,
FIGURE 3.1 The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project-5 (CMIP5) produced this multi-model simulated
time series from 1950 to 2100 for September sea ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere. The results are
displayed as a 5-year running mean. Time series of projections are indicated by a solid line and a mea-
sure of uncertainty is indicated by shading. Projections are shown for two Representative Concentration
Pathways (RCPs). RCP2.6 (blue) and RCP8.5 (red) represent radiative forcing values in 2100 that are 2.6 and
8.5 W/m2 greater, respectively, than preindustrial values. The solid black line (grey shading indicates the
uncertainty) is the modeled historical evolution using reconstructed forcings. The mean and associated
uncertainties averaged over 20812100 are given for all RCP scenarios as colored vertical bars. The num-
ber of CMIP5 models used to calculate the multi-model mean is indicated above and below the curves.
The projected mean and uncertainty of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatologi-
cal mean state and 1979 to 2012 trend of the Northern Hemisphere sea ice is given (number of models
noted in brackets). For completeness, the CMIP5 multi-model mean is also indicated by the dotted lines.
The black dashed line represents nearly ice-free conditions (i.e., when sea ice extent is less than 106 km2
for at least 5 consecutive years). SOURCE: IPCC (2013), Figure SPM.7, p. 19.
33

exploring what becomes accessible because of climate change or better technology,

investigating the ways Arctic change will affect the rest of the world, finding ways to
manage reactions to change, and being prepared to detect and respond to surprises.
Box 3.1, below, provides an example of these challenges with regard to the coastal
zone, where our understanding depends on considering all parts of the system and on
working across geographical and disciplinary boundaries.
We also acknowledge the importance of the ongoing research and high-priority ques-
tions that others have identified and continue to study, and we list examples of the
BOX 3.1 THE CRITICAL COASTAL ZONE
The coastal zone is a critical region. It lies at the interface where people, land, glaciers, and
rivers meet the sea and sea ice. Conditions and relationships there change hourly when there
is a storm, seasonally as fast ice grows and melts, and over years as coastlines are eroded. It is
where populations have congregated for thousands of years and, therefore, where people face
both their greatest threats and opportunities in the Anthropocene. Coastal zone issues cut across
the emerging research questions in this chapter: the Evolving, Hidden, Connected, Managed, and
Undetermined Arctic.
In the coastal zone, the terrestrial transitions to the marine. Logistical requirements and
agency responsibilities shift in this region, and therefore, to some degree, scientific communities
shift as well. Less than 10 percent of Alaska has contemporary shoreline data. In addition, shore-
line conditions are not uniform, varying from mudflats, to sandy ice-cored cliffs, to river deltas, to
tidewater glaciers. Sometimes the coast is highly populated, often it is not. This dearth of data,
coupled with the lack of research infrastructure along much of the Arctic coast, means that the
coastal zone has not received as much attention as needed to understand its changing role.
Coastal river output, for example, profoundly affects shelf stratification and circulation processes
as well as discharging important dissolved and suspended materials to the ocean. Arctic rivers
have a unique annual cycle in which a substantial fraction of their annual discharge, along with
the largest fluxes of freshwater, suspended sediment, nutrients, dissolved and particulate organic
carbon, and trace metals, occurs during a brief spring freshet (Alkire and Trefry, 2006; Rember and
Trefry, 2004; Syvitski, 2002). These discharges and fluxes impact landfast ice and coastal dynamics
as well as bacterial and algal production and carbon cycling.
Potential consequences of climate change on this interface are poorly understood. Most
general circulation models do not resolve the scales of the landfast ice zone or the coastal cur-
rents and so may fail to correctly process the terrestrial discharge. The evolution of estuarine
shelves in response to alterations in the terrestrial hydrologic cycle is also uncertain, as is the
role of changing terrestrial carbon in Arctic estuarine food webs (Dunton et al., 2006) and the
impact of inputs of nutrients and organic carbon on the productivity of coastal systems, includ-
34

Emerging Questions
kinds of existing questions that continue to motivate Arctic research. The committee
recognizes that the distinction between existing and emerging questions is somewhat
arbitrary and that both sets of questions actually fall on a spectrum of research ideas
that blend existing and emerging to varying degrees. Using community input and
extensive deliberation, the committee characterized questions as existing or emerging
on the basis of the criteria in Box 3.2. The specific emerging research questions pre-
sented here are not intended to be comprehensive but are intended to be representa-
tive of emerging topics that deserve attention. The committee considered hundreds of
potential emerging questions that emerged from community input received through
BOX 3.1 CONTINUED

ing coastal lagoons. Similarly, the tidewater glacier ice/ocean/sea ice/sea floor interface has long
been known to be critical in determining glacier stability, but warming oceans and diminishing
sea ice affect contributions to sea level rise.
Although concerns about sea level rise and coastal erosion have been growing in recent
decades, response to further changes cannot be delayed. This is true not only for Alaskan villages
but also for coastal communities in Florida and other low-lying regions that face similar threats.
One of the most pressing questions of the Anthropocene is how to set priorities for relocations
or infrastructure that may be needed, and how to pay for them (Huntington et al., 2012). What
are the strategies in determining when to implement coastal protection zones or to abandon
near shore areas to erosion and sea level rise? This is a discussion that society needs to face at
the scale of communities, states, and nations. It will require a suite of foundational observations,
models, and research, including social, cultural, and economic analyses to make such decisions.
Coast Guard Base in Kodiak, Alaska. SOURCE: U.S. Coast Guard.
35

BOX 3.2 CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING EXISTING AND EMERGING RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Existing Questions are those that have been the subject of ongoing research but remain un-
answered or for other reasons deserve continued attention.
Emerging Questions are those that we are only now able to ask because they (1) address newly
recognized phenomena, (2) build on recent results and insights, or (3) can be addressed using
newly available technology or access.
two workshops, a number of interviews, an online questionnaire, and a review of rel-

evant reports. By their inclusion in this report, the committee considers the high-level
topics presented in this chapter (Evolving, Hidden, Connected, Managed, and Unde-
termined Arctic) to be priorities for IARPC as a whole and leaves individual agencies
to prioritize investments in these topics in accordance with their specific mission and
goals. The questions in each section are numbered for easier reference, and the num-
bering does not imply priority or relative significance. Prioritization is a collaborative
exercise that requires continuing dialog and reassessment, and will best be achieved
through an improved interaction between the scientific and policy communities. This
issue is discussed in greater detail at the end of this chapter.
EVOLVING ARCTIC
Emerging Questions for the Evolving Arctic

E1. Will Arctic communities have greater or lesser influence on their futures?
E2. Will the land be wetter or drier, and what are the associated implications for surface
water, energy balances, and ecosystems?
E3. How much of the variability of the Arctic system is linked to ocean circulation?
E4. What are the impacts of extreme events in the new ice-reduced system?
E5. How will primary productivity change with decreasing sea ice and snow cover?
E6. How will species distributions and associated ecosystem structure change with the
In this section, we focus on the effects of Arctic change on the Arctic system itself. Al-
ready it is evolving at an unprecedented rate, and this is widely seen as just the precur-
36

Emerging Questions
sor to what is in store (ACIA, 2005; AMAP, 2012). The most prominent physical change
seen thus far is the evolution of the cryosphere, with cascading effects on the biologi-
cal, chemical, and physical systems of the ocean, land, and atmosphere (Hinzman et al.,
2013; Jeffries et al., 2013). These changes will cause large-scale disruption of current
systems and infrastructure, offer new challenges and opportunities, and entail poten-
tial catastrophes (NRC, 2013).
At the same time, social, cultural, political, and economic changes have been rapid and
widespread throughout the Arctic, manifesting themselves in various ways in differ-
ent regions and at different times (e.g., AHDR, 2004). Cash economies have merged
with or overtaken traditional modes of production and distribution. There has been a
shift away from colonial relations, and indigenous rights have been recognized in land
claims settlements and the creation of new political arrangements such as Nunavut in
Canada and Self-Rule Government in Greenland. Languages are being lost while other
traditional practices are strengthened by new programs and institutions based in the
Arctic. These and related topics are addressed in emerging questions in this section, as
well as in the sections on the Connected Arctic and the Managed Arctic.
The rate at which change is occurring may be more important than its magnitude,
as both natural and social systems try to match their rate of adaptation to the rate
of change. Extreme events and non-linearities, as well as abrupt or unanticipated
changes, will challenge both natural and human systems. Many of these changes are
immediately obvious, on time scales of days or weeks; however, the longer-term (years
to decades) evolution of the system in response to these changes remains unknown.
Also, although in many cases the direction of change is known, the critical unknown is
the rate of change.
Given both the rate of ongoing change and the profound impact of those changes on
all facets of the Arctic system and its connections to other global processes, it is likely
that the Arctic region will present some of the greatest challenges to our societies.
The Arctic cryosphere, or frozen Arctic, is composed of permanent and seasonal sea
ice, ice sheets, glaciers, lake and river ice, snow, and permafrost (Overpeck et al., 2005).
During the last decade, changes in extent, thickness, and seasonal timing in all of
these components have been observed, with the most prominent being the decline
in the extent of summer sea ice in 2012 to a record low of 3.4 million square kilome-
ters (NSIDC1), dramatic decreases in sea ice age, thickness, and volume (Perovich et
al., 2013), and increasing trends of snow-free periods (~11 days/decade in spring and
1
See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonal-
minimum/.
37

FIGURE 3.2 For up to 9 months of the year, snow covers the Arctic land surface. Unlike sea ice and gla-
ciers, most terrestrial snow cover is seasonal, melting and disappearing completely each spring and sum-
mer. The timing of this melt, which is influenced largely by surface temperatures, affects the length of the
growing season, the timing and dynamics of spring river runoff, permafrost thawing, and wildlife popula-
tions. According to the 2013 Arctic Report Card, reductions in Arctic spring snow cover have direct effects
on the global climate system because snow-free land absorbs much more sunlight. SOURCE: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
~2 days/decade in autumn) at higher latitudes in North America (Derksen and Brown,

2012). In most regions, permafrost temperatures have increased over the past 30 years,
and a general increase in active layer thickness has been observed as well, although
there are large regional variations (IPCC, 2013). The rapid loss of permanent Arctic ice
and the changing extent and timing of seasonal ice and snow cover (see Figure 3.2)
have important ramifications for multiple components of the Arctic system (Overpeck
et al., 2005).
Focusing within the Arctic, the most visible manifestations of what the future holds
for an evolving Arctic are those connected with human activity. Already, ship traffic in
the Arctic is increasing with the expanded access due to decreased summer sea ice,
bringing with it a concomitant increase in risks of environmental disaster and threats
to human safety (Arctic Council, 2009). Over 400 ships engaged in commerce, tour-
ism, and research transited through the Bering Strait in 2012, a dramatic increase from
the just over 200 in 2008 (USCG, 2013). Passages, particularly of cruise ships and small
personal vessels, through the still mostly icebound Northwest Passage are becom-
ing commonplace, and the Northern Sea Route is now transited almost routinely by
38

Emerging Questions
commercial vessels.2 Interests in oil and gas reserves have boomed, accompanied by
prospects of financial gainincluding local and non-local employment. This develop-
ment is accompanied by the risks of coastal and terrestrial environmental disturbance
and stresses on local communities such as housing in villages (e.g., Lloyds, 2012). Per-
mafrost degradation represents another potential impact on local communities and
infrastructure. Increasing permafrost temperatures and active layer depth can have
serious and costly effects on roads, buildings, and industrial facilities. The projected
rise in permafrost temperatures may lead to additional engineering challenges to
infrastructure (ACIA, 2005).
With decreased sea ice have come more threats from weather, manifest as more fre-
quent and more intense storms that threaten the now exposed Arctic coast and the
human infrastructure on those coasts (Forbes, 2011). In the terrestrial environment,
changes in the timing and extent of snow cover have wide-ranging ecological effects
on soil, plant, and animal communities, as well as impacts on lakes, rivers, and wetlands
and on social and economic infrastructure. Snow also acts as an insulator for Arctic
soils, and future increases in snow depth (predicted for the high Arctic during autumn
and winter) may result in higher winter soil temperatures, increased biogeochemi-
cal processing of organic materials, and increased respiration (Vincent et al., 2011).
The timing of snow is also critical; earlier winter snow can have an insulating effect,
whereas late spring snow can have a cooling effect (Zhang, 2005). Ecosystems of the
northern latitudes are most vulnerable to a changing climate because low tempera-
tures and limited sunlight restrict species diversity, levels of primary productivity, and
decomposition rates, and they also affect water and energy exchange processes.
The freshwater cycle plays a central role to every physical and biological process in
the Arctic, so we cannot overstate its importance. The Arctic freshwater system is an
inherent component of the global hydrological cycle, and as such it plays an essential
role in linking Arctic climate dynamics with the global system. The polar regions actu-
ally have a net negative annual average radiation balance; that is, more heat is emitted
to space as long wave radiation than is absorbed from solar radiation. The total Earth
energy balance must of course equal zero, so that energy deficit is made up by heat
transported from lower latitudes, through hydrologic processes of moisture advection
(latent heat) and dry static energy (sensible heat plus geopotential energy). In recent
decades, several of the processes associated with the hydrologic cycle appear to have
intensified (Rawlins et al., 2010; White et al., 2007). A major research question has been
what has caused the significant increase in discharge of Eurasian rivers in the last
2 See http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/europe/russia-preparing-patrols-of-arctic-shipping-
lanes.html.
39

century (Peterson et al., 2002), which now appears to be associated with significant
increases in atmospheric moisture transport (Zhang et al., 2013b). Other important
teleconnections have recently been identified, but characterization of mechanisms
remains elusive (Overland, 2014; Tang et al., 2013).
Regionality is as important as seasonality for understanding the evolving Arctic.
System-level response will depend on where you are within the Arctic. Basins will
respond differently from shelves, and inflow shelves driven by Atlantic and Pacific
inflows (like the Barents and Chukchi) will respond differently from interior shelves
strongly influenced by river discharge (such as the Siberian Sea). Examining regional
differences in the responses of the physical, biological, and social systems of the Arctic
will be an important component of addressing the emerging questions presented in
this section.
Looking to the future, understanding the evolving Arctic poses multiple research
questions and directions. Some of the most compelling questions center on the
impacts of diminished ice and snow on the terrestrial and marine systems. A number
of questions, such as the impacts of ocean acidification and of the loss of sea ice as a
substrate for marine organisms, though extremely important and requiring continued
research and funding support, are now so well recognized by both the science com-
munity and the general public that they are no longer emerging. Some of the exist-
ing questions that will not be detailed in this report are listed below.
Examples of existing questions:
What will be the climatic, ecological, and societal impacts of sea ice loss?
How will changing seasonality in sea ice and snow cover affect trophic
interactions?
How is the Arctic/Northern Hemisphere hydrologic cycle changing, and how
will those changes affect such processes as vegetation change, sea ice forma-
tion, sea water stratification, cloud properties, the surface energy balance, and
potentially the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?
What are the consequences of changing vegetation patterns and resulting
responses by wildlife to ecosystem evolution in the tundra and boreal regions
of the circumpolar north?
How do Arctic clouds, aerosols, radiation, and boundary layer processes drive
change in the Arctic climate system?
What will be the impacts of ocean acidification on marine species and
ecosystems?
40

Emerging Questions
How will climate-induced natural changes and associated human activi-

ties (e.g., shipping, interest in resource development) affect marine mammal
populations?
What are the short- and long-term implications of social, cultural, and eco-
nomic change among Arctic peoples?
How will the ecosystem and built infrastructure respond to widespread degra-
dation of permafrost?
How will rapid Arctic change affect the interactions between scientific discov-
ery and policy making?
Will Arctic Communities Have Greater or Lesser Influence on Their Futures?
As summer sea ice cover decreases and a seasonally nearly ice-free Arctic appears
increasingly likely within a few decades, interest in new trade routes and petroleum
deposits continue the post-Cold War transformation of the Arctic from a military and
hunter-gatherer region to one that embraces a wide range of social and economic
aspirations (tland, 2009). Such a transformation will expose social-ecological systems
to both negative impacts and positive opportunities.
Although national and regional governments remain powerful agents of policy mak-
ing, global markets, intergovernmental forums, and nongovernmental organizations
play an increasing role in determining the attractiveness and viability of economic
development in the Arctic. Perhaps more important, though, is the evolving role of
Arctic communities and institutions. In particular, the role of indigenous and other lo-
cal communities, in an era where knowledge networks and consultative processes can
play a prominent role in policy formation, is plausibly much greater than ever before.
New and emerging research priorities need to focus on the ways that contemporary
Arctic communities navigate and shape their evolving circumstances,3 drawing on a
tradition of flexibility, resilience, and adaptive capacity in an environment of high natu-
ral variability. The cascading effects of rapid change will stress these traditions in new
ways (Hovelsrud et al., 2011; see Box 3.3). The assertion of indigenous rights and the
capacity to exercise those rights are increasing in much of the Arctic. Research to date
has identified the major institutional and environmental influences on Arctic commu-
nities, such as the role of government and the availability of fish and wildlife (AHDR,
2004). More work is needed to understand how these influences function, separately
and together; how these relationships are likely to change over time at local, regional,
3 See
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/science/earth/arctic-resources-exposed-by-warming-set-
off-competition.html.
41

BOX 3.3 ADAPTATION CHALLENGES IN COASTAL FISHERIES
Projected impacts of ocean warming in the North Atlantic include shifts in the spawning
and feeding grounds of several economically significant fish populations, including Arctic cod,
herring, and capelin (Loeng and Drinkwater, 2007). West and Hovelsrud (2008) note that these
changes will have ramifications across a range of scales, from local communities to regional
labor markets to national and international regulatory regimes. Existing successful adaptation
strategies, involving flexibility in fishing location, timing, and species (Jentoft, 1998), are increas-
ingly limited by environmental, economic, and management constraints and a progressively
more globalized market. West and Hovelsrud (2010) employed a range of methods to address
the impacts of, and cross-scale interactions inherent in, these adaptation challenges in the small
Norwegian fishing town of Lebesby. They used climatic information from the Arctic Climate Im-
pact Assessment (ACIA, 2005), statistics from national sources such as the Norwegian Directorate
of Fisheries, ethnographic approaches (interviews, meetings, and participant observation), and
published assessments of marine ecosystem dynamics to assess the adaptive capacity. Based
on this comprehensive approach, West and Hovelsrud (2010) found that critical elements limit-
ing the resilience of this community to change were (1) the mismatch between global market
prices and local fish supply and (2) problematic demographic shifts, including outmigration and
an aging fisher population.
and global scales; and how Arctic communities can best exercise their adaptive capac-
ity (the ability of a system to prepare for stresses and changes so that responses can
be developed and implemented to minimize negative impacts in a timely manner).
Lessons learned from Arctic communities will also be valuable for other indigenous
and remote cultures facing similar stresses due to climate and other changes. At stake
is the ability of Arctic communities to determine their own futures, to balance cultural,
environmental, and economic needs as they, and not others, see fit. The alternative
is that national and global forces dominate, leaving increasingly less room for Arctic
communities to shape their own affairs. Reality is likely to include elements of both
outcomes.
Will the Land Be Wetter or Drier, and What Are the Associated
Implications for Surface Water, Energy Balances, and Ecosystems?
Our ability to predict Arctic watershed and ecosystem evolution remains tenuous
at best, yet it is critical to understanding the Arctics evolving role in the carbon and
hydrologic cycles, in climate, and in energy exchange processes. Most global climate
models (GCMs) predict increases in both summer and winter precipitation in high
northern latitudes (IPCC, 2013; Knutti and Sedlacek, 2013) although the magnitude
42

Emerging Questions
and the rates of change remain uncertain. Most of the uncertainty is due to the ambi-
guity associated with selection of the correct emission scenario. In Arctic soils, ice-rich
permafrost prevents infiltration of rainfall and snow meltwater, often maintaining a
surface moist-to-saturated active layer, and can block the lateral movement of ground-
water. But, as permafrost degrades, changes in interactions between surface and
groundwater occur that affect the surface energy balance and essential ecosystem
processes. As permafrost disappears, it will be replaced with seasonally frozen ground,
bringing additional scientific and engineering challenges.
Significant changes have already taken place over the past 50 years in response to a
warming climate (Lantuit et al., 2012; Soja et al., 2007), including thawing permafrost
(IPCC, 2013, and references therein; Romanovsky et al., 2010; Figure 3.3), expanding
shrub growth in the Arctic tundra (Sturm et al., 2001), drying of lakes (Carroll et al.,
2011), and expanding growing seasons and increasing plant productivity (Walker et
al., 2012).
Permafrost soils store almost as much organic carbon (approximately 1,670 Petagrams
(Pg) (Tarnocai et al., 2009) as is found in the rest of the worlds soils combined. Tarno-
cai et al. (2009) have estimated that the soil carbon stocks in the Arctic may account
for more than 25 percent of global soil carbon stocks in the top meter and perhaps a
FIGURE 3.3 Stable, cold permafrost (left) is often characterized by low-centered polygons, which form
over centuries as massive ice wedges develop, creating the polygonal edges. As climate warms, the
permafrost thaws and the massive ice wedges melt, causing subsidence of the surface and enhanced
surface drainage networks (right). These disturbed sites are becoming more common and will continue to
increase with continued warming and increases in wildfire or other such disturbance. Changes in surface
condition affect ecosystems, trace gas fluxes, surface energy and water budgets, and runoff stream chem-
istry. SOURCE: Larry Hinzman.
43

third of the carbon stocks in the top 3 meters. Tremendous carbon stocks exist below
3 meters in deep ice-rich deposits of Eurasia and North America (Schirrmeister et al.,
2011). Changing active layer and permafrost conditions and increased erosion would
promote carbon loss from these huge stores. The short- and long-term impacts to ter-
restrial and marine ecosystems are unknown. The potential carbon loss to the atmo-
sphere is also largely unknown and of concern.
If warming continues as projected, large-scale changes in surface hydrology are
expected as permafrost degrades (Hinzman et al., 2013). Where groundwater gradi-
ents are downward (i.e., surface water will infiltrate subsurface groundwater), as in
most cases, we may expect improved drainage and drier soils, which would result in
reduced evaporation and transpiration (ET). In some special cases, where the ground-
water gradient is upward (as in many wetlands or springs), surface soils may become
wetter or inundated as permafrost degrades.
Serreze et al. (2002) demonstrated that ~80 percent of high-latitude summer precipi-
tation results from recycled evaporation. A decrease in ET fluxes would therefore lead
to a decrease in precipitation, all else being equal. Because GCMs do not currently
include realistic treatment of permafrost impacts on surface hydrology, simulations
of 21st-century high-latitude climate change are more uncertain, and at this point
it is not even possible to quantify the errors. Further, because soil moisture is a pri-
mary factor controlling ecosystem processes, interactions between ecosystems, and
greenhouse gas emissions, the model predictions of such processes are also consid-
ered highly uncertain. These interdependent processes will exert primary controls on
several important feedback processes, and they vary across space and time in some as
yet unknown way. Important climate feedback processes associated with degrading
permafrost include changes in latent, sensible, and radiative heat fluxes as the soils
become drier or wetter, as vegetation changes, and as carbon emissions evolve.
Marked changes in surface structure and land-surface evolution are anticipated with
continued warming in the Arctic. Numerous surficial landslides have been reported
with increased summer thawing (Figure 3.4). Thermokarsts are examples of severe
surface subsidence associated with thawing of massive ground ice. They are usually
enhanced by fluvial erosion and continued thermal degradation. Such landscape pro-
cesses are altering drainage networks, usually increasing the density of drainage chan-
nels but also increasing the sediment load and altering stream water chemistry, with
consequent effects on aquatic and marine ecosystems, as well as human infrastructure
and activities.
44

Emerging Questions
FIGURE 3.4 Permafrost slump at Yukon River Bridge, adjacent to the Dalton Highway and Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System. These slumps have become more common as permafrost thaws and the surface gives
way in a landslide. SOURCE: Erik Bachmann, Alaska State Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
How Much of the Variability of the Arctic System Is Linked to Ocean Circulation?
Recently, the National Academy of Sciences addressed the improvements needed in

observations and models of both the sea ice and the atmosphere in order to enhance
sea ice predictions (NRC, 2012b). A complementary issue is that the ocean also plays
a critical role in the Arctic system but it is unclear how the present state of the Arctic
and its future evolution are linked to the advection and mixing of oceanic heat and
freshwater. In this regard, fundamental questions emerge pertaining to the Arctic
Oceans circulation, including the mechanisms, rates, and variability of its transport
pathways, vertical and horizontal mixing processes, and the fate and dispersal of the
waters flowing across its surrounding shelves. These processes span a broad spectrum
of time (Bnisch and Schlosser, 1995; Schlosser et al., 1995) and space scales and are
intimately linked to one another (Spall, 2013) and to the North Atlantic and North Pa-
45

cific oceans. Alone and in aggregate, these processes profoundly affect the Arctics ice,
atmosphere, and marine ecosystems.
There is a negative feedback between vertical mixing of heat and melting ice; an
increase in heat flux enhances ice melt but increases vertical stratification, which then
suppresses the heat flux shown by Martinson and Steele (2001) in a model for the
Weddell Sea in the Antarctic. It is not apparent how this feedback will be modified as
ice thickness diminishes and, in the extreme, in a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean. For
example, Pinkel (2005) has suggested that, with a reduced ice cover, mixing by inter-
nal wave energy might increase greatly. On the other hand, even small but sustained
changes in the vertical mixing of heat may precondition the ice cover to more rapid
melting (Polyakov et al., 2010). Oceanic heat and salt fluxes can occur through a variety
of horizontal and vertical mixing processes, each of which varies in time and space (on
both the basin and shelves) in response to changes in the Arctics ice cover, stratifica-
tion, boundary currents, and atmospheric forcing (Guthrie et al., 2013). The stratifica-
tion of the Arctic Ocean also affects the cycling of nutrients and thus exerts important
controls on primary production. An increase in stratification will inhibit the mixing of
nutrients into the surface layer of the ocean and tend to suppress production. Under-
standing the factors that affect these turbulent fluxes in the Arctic Ocean is essential
for understanding how the Arctic Ocean will evolve.
Over the last two decades, the Arctic has witnessed dramatic and rapid changes in the
inflow of Atlantic Water (Polyakov et al., 2012; Schauer et al., 2008) that has resulted in
warming in both the Eurasian (Morison et al., 1998; Polyakov et al., 2011; Quadfasel et
al., 1991; Steele and Boyd, 1998) and Canada basins (Carmack et al., 1995; McLaughlin
et al., 2009; Shimada et al., 2004). There have also been substantial changes in the oce-
anic accumulation of freshwater and the pathways by which freshwater (Morison et
al., 2012; Proshutinsky, 2010) is transported through the Arctic Ocean. These changes
are intimately linked to the wind, which forces ocean currents and/or causes changes
in the thickness of the upper ocean layer (Yang, 2006). Moreover, the structure of the
boundary currents varies in time and location with the local and remote winds and
buoyancy forcing (Pickart et al., 2011). There have also been significant changes in
the seasonal phasing and volume of river discharge into the Arctic (Shiklomanov
and Lammers, 2011) and the fluxes of heat and freshwater through the Bering Strait
(Woodgate et al., 2012).
Arctic climate models exhibit substantial differences among themselves and with
observations in their ocean temperature and salinity distributions and circulation
(Holloway et al., 2007; Holloway et al., 2011). While essential ocean physics may be
missing from many models, explicitly capturing the structure of boundary currents,
46

Emerging Questions
eddy formation and decay, and mixing represent substantial hurdles for the present
generation of Arctic atmosphere-ice-ocean models (Newton et al., 2008). Currently
we possess only a rudimentary understanding of the time-varying nature of these
processes and then at only a few locations and for limited time periods. It also ap-
pears that a major driver of the cyclonic circulation of the Atlantic Water is the salinity
contrast between the high-salinity Atlantic Water flowing in the boundary currents
and the low-salinity shelf water entering the basin (Spall, 2013). This implies that the
response of the Arctic Ocean depends critically on three issues: (1) processes in the
North Atlantic Ocean that establish the thermohaline properties and mass transport
of the Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean, (2) the fluxes through the Bering Strait
(which depend upon North Pacific Ocean processes), and (3) mixing and dispersal
of the riverine discharges rimming the basin. The latter two contributions are subse-
quently modified upon crossing the continental shelves surrounding the basin.
Arctic continental shelves are enormous, occupying 35 percent of the Arctic Ocean
area. They support important cultural and subsistence resources for local residents
and are the most likely marine regions in which substantial increases in human indus-
trial activities will occur in the near future. The shelves also serve as the Arctic Oceans
estuaries in regulating the fate and dispersal of both the Arctics river discharges (of
which many are large and flow year-round) and their dissolved and suspended bur-
dens. They are the site of the largest changes in sea ice extent and seasonality in the
Arctic Ocean, but the extent to which changes in winds, air-sea heat fluxes, and shelf
currents affect the shelf sea ice environment has hardly been addressed. An unre-
solved issue is how the estuarine role of shelves will evolve in response to alterations
in the terrestrial hydrologic cycle and a changing landfast ice regime.
What Are the Impacts of Extreme Events in the New Ice-Reduced System?
As the Arctic evolves, the potential for unpredictable and extreme events such as
storms, wildfires, and anomalous precipitation increases. Increases in storminess and
cyclone activity, particularly in the western Arctic, have been documented (McCabe
et al., 2001), as have the relationships between Arctic sea ice transport and cyclones
(Maslanik et al., 2007). More recent changes in Arctic climate, combined with record
reductions in minimum sea ice extent, suggest a qualitative shift in the Arctic atmo-
spheric circulation (Overland et al., 2012).
The complex interplay between Arctic storminess, sea ice cover, and upper-ocean
structure poses active and intriguing questions. Increased storminess may contribute
to the degradation and reduction in summer sea ice extent, as demonstrated with
47

a modeling study for the summer of 2012, when a massive cyclone (see Figure 3.5)
transited the western Arctic (Zhang et al., 2014). Furthermore, the reduction in summer
sea ice and the increasing frequency and severity of storms has direct impacts such as
elevated sea state and the accompanying increased flooding, erosion, and incidence of
ivu (ice pile-up on shore), with attendant threats to human infrastructure and well-be-
ing (Lynch et al., 2008). Severe storms may also have significant impacts on the marine
ecosystem. Effects range from loss of sea ice substrate through mechanical disruption
to increased primary production in response to increased nutrient availability through
vertical mixing, to increased upwelling of high pCO2 waters into shallower depths (e.g.,
Mathis et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2013a). For coastal ecosystems, storm surges of seawa-
ter into lakes promote replacement of endemic taxa with brackish-water species (see,
e.g., Thienpont et al., 2012).
FIGURE 3.5 The great Arctic cyclone of 2012. This image from August 6, 2012, shows the cyclone centered
in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. SOURCE: NASA Earth Observatory.
48

Emerging Questions
Greater frequency and severity of storms increases the threat of wildfire ignited by
lightning strikes. The potential for wildfire is also associated with soil moisture condi-
tions and the availability of fuel. Climate change scenarios forecasting warmer and
drier conditions project greater wildfire frequency, extent, and severity in the high
northern latitudes (Balshi et al., 2009; Flannigan et al., 2005). Wildfire was identified as
a major emerging issue by the North Slope Science Initiative (NSSI). Recent observa-
tions of the wildfire patterns in boreal regions have shown wildfires to be increasing
in size and frequency, with the trends attributed to a warming climate (Kasischke and
Hoy, 2012; Kasischke and Turetsky, 2006). Tundra fires have been historically rare events
on Alaskas North Slope (Barney and Comiskey, 1973), with only 122 wildfires reported
since the states record began in 1950. An unprecedented wildfire in terms of size, se-
verity, and duration occurred on Alaskas North Slope in 2007 (Anaktuvuk fire, 103,600
ha) and burned from July to September in tundra (Jandt et al., 2012). Wildfire in tundra
and taiga transition zones has not been thoroughly mapped or recorded. Observa-
tions of storms, lightning strikes, and fire frequency, extent, and severity are needed in
the tundra to determine whether the fire regime is changing.
On land, heavy rain-on-snow is expected to become increasingly frequent in the Arctic,
with potentially large consequences resulting from changes in snowpack properties
and ground-icing. Winter rainfall and thaw-refreeze events can form an impenetrable
ice layer within the snowpack that restricts grazers access to forage plants; however,
effects on both plants and animals associated with winter thaw-refreeze events re-
main unclear (Rennert et al., 2009). There is some evidence that extreme rain-on-snow
events can lead to widespread mortality or range displacement of reindeer, caribou,
and muskoxen (Stien et al., 2010). However, observations of the frequency, timing,
extent, and size of thaw-refreeze events, at relevant scales, remain limited.
Even in the absence of winter rain, extreme winter warming events that subsequently
expose plants to cold winter air may lead to the loss of overwintering flower buds that
will not produce flowers the following summer (Semenchuk et al., 2013). Although
many species are resistant to exposure, exposing flower buds to cold winter air can
lead to large population and community changes. There is also evidence of disruption
of fish habitat following winter breakup of river ice. The potential for future warming
to increase the frequency, extent, and severity of winter rain events, with potentially
widespread consequences for plants and animals that depend on access to sheltered
subnivean (occurring under the snow) space, will require collaboration across several
disciplines and enhanced meteorological monitoring systems at scales appropriate to
detect these changes.
49

Additional potential extreme events include an unprecedented meltback of summer

sea ice and a terrestrial or marine anthropogenic environmental disaster such as an oil
spill (e.g., the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico). There is a
need for development of models and other decision-support tools, policies, and strate-
gies for hazard mitigation, including assessing community and ecosystem risks and
preparing response strategies.
How Will Primary Productivity Change with Decreasing Sea Ice and Snow Cover?
The concept that increased availability of sunlight to primary producers, either

through reduction in sea ice and snow cover in the ocean or through reduction in
snow cover on land, will lead to increased primary production seems intuitive. How-
ever, primary production is also dependent on the availability of nutrients and, in ter-
restrial systems, on soil moisture and temperature.
Surprisingly high levels of marine primary production and chlorophyll standing stock
have been observed recently at some locations. For example, Arrigo et al. (2012)
reported a massive under-ice phytoplankton bloom of unprecedented magnitude
and far (100 km) from the ice edge that appears to have been promoted by light
penetration through melt ponds in the overlying sea ice. There is increasing aware-
ness of the importance of melt ponds and their potential to become more numerous
and ubiquitous, given the thinner seasonal sea ice (Frey et al., 2011). These melt ponds
may promote greater primary production by ice algae, potentially at the expense of
water-column phytoplankton blooms because of competition for nutrients between
the two types of primary producers. The ubiquitous presence of ice-edge blooms is
now also recognized, with new analyses of satellite data (Perrette et al., 2011). Whether
these increased productivities are new, in response to the changing environment, or
are newly recognized because of increased capability or opportunity for study, is at
present unknown.
Each summer, the euphotic zone (upper layer that supports photosynthetic activity) of
the ocean is depleted of nutrients well before winter sea ice has formed and the Arctic
has entered the sunlight-devoid polar night. This would suggest that, unless nutrients
are replenished in the euphotic zone from regeneration, vertical mixing, or external
inputs, then marine primary production will not increase substantially with increased
availability of light. Over much of the Arctic, vertical mixing of nutrients is unlikely,
given the strength of the pycnocline, unless that feature is eroded by warming of
the deeper Atlantic water below or by mixing (e.g., Rainville and Woodgate, 2009).
However, the reduced sea ice extent and greater area of open water may promote
50

Emerging Questions
increased inputs of nutrients to the euphotic zone through physical processes such
as shelf-break upwelling (e.g., Pickart et al., 2013). Increased riverine input of nutrients,
a consequence of permafrost thawing and release of nutrients, as well as increased
advective input of nutrient-rich water from outside the Arctic, may increase ocean
euphotic zone primary production (e.g., ACIA, 2005; Holmes et al., 2013). By contrast,
increased freshwater in the Beaufort Gyre resulting from increased ice melt has
deepened the pycnocline and nutricline there to below the bottom of the euphotic
zone (McLaughlin and Carmack, 2010). Ultimately, whether marine primary production
increases in the future will depend on a complex balance of physical factors that are
evolving in response to the changing cryosphere.
In the Arctic terrestrial environment, earlier snowmelt and longer growing seasons
lead to increased vegetation productivity, often referred to as greening (Bhatt et al.,
2010; Walker et al., 2012; Figure 3.6). Warming soils and deepening active layers pro-
FIGURE 3.6 Land areas adjacent to newly opened water in the Arctic are becoming greener. Since obser-
vations began in 1982, Arctic-wide tundra vegetation productivity has increased. In the North American
Arctic, the rate of greening has accelerated since 2005. SOURCE: NOAA.
51

vide a more tolerant environment for a greater diversity of plant species and increased
productivity, and thus there has been a rapid expansion of woody shrubs into tundra
(Myers-Smith and Hik, 2013). This greening of the Arctic is visible from space, and
although warming and greening are documented in North America, some areas in
northern Russia and along the Bering Sea coast of Alaska are cooling and vegeta-
tion productivity is declining (Post et al., 2013), perhaps a consequence of changes in
atmospheric circulation patterns over the Eurasian continent in summer (Tang et al.,
2013). Gamon et al. (2013) observed that productivity in Alaska was associated pri-
marily with varying precipitation and soil moisture and only secondarily with grow-
ing degree days, which can lead to reduced primary productivity in years with earlier
snowmelt.
Recent observations, however, call into question the assumption that earlier Arctic
growing seasons will lead to greater vegetation productivity, indicating that better
calibrated observations will be necessary to adequately forecast future changes in
Arctic terrestrial productivity. In situ monitoring of actual vegetation responses using
field optical sampling is needed to obtain detailed information on surface conditions
that cannot be extracted from satellite observations alone (Gamon et al., 2013).
How Will Species Distributions and Associated Ecosystem

Structure Change with the Evolving Cryosphere?
Arctic ecosystems and the biodiversity they support are under increasing pressure
from environmental and societal changes occurring at multiple spatial, temporal, and
organizational scales. Species-poor Arctic ecosystems tend to lack functional redun-
dancy and so are potentially vulnerable to cascading effects from the loss of a single
species. As the Arctic evolves, some organisms will succeed and some will fail. There
will likely be poleward shifts in major marine and terrestrial biomes, with the Arctic
Ocean geographically limiting the shifts of terrestrial species. The species that succeed
will be those that can successfully adapt to and exploit the changing environment by
expanding their geographic range and prominence (abundance, dominance) in the
ecosystem through more successful recruitment, survival, and competition. The spe-
cies that fail will be those that cannot successfully adapt because of ecological factors,
including physiological intolerance, phenological mismatch with the environment,
and inability to compete. These species will decrease in importance in the ecosystem
and may become locally or regionally extinct.
Species changes will have significant impacts on food web structures and may result
in drastically modified ecosystem function. A shift in the phytoplankton community
52

Emerging Questions
of the Canada Basin from larger to smaller species (Li et al., 2009) has already resulted
from freshening caused by sea ice melting and increased river discharge. The northern
Bering and Chukchi Seas are at present benthically dominated, with much of the ice
algal and phytoplankton primary production being used by a rich benthic commu-
nity (e.g., Campbell et al., 2009; Grebmeier, 2012). With decreased seasonal sea ice, one
scenario is that these ecosystems could transition to a pelagically dominated struc-
ture, with greater biomass retained in the water column (including the emergence of
abundant pelagic fish).
Changes in permafrost are likely to have a large impact on terrestrial ecosystems, par-
ticularly forests. The softer soil that results from permafrost thaw interferes with tree
root systems, creating drunken forests (see, e.g., Figure 3.7). White spruce in Alaskas
tundra have been growing faster in warmer temperatures (Andreu-Hayles et al., 2011),
FIGURE 3.7 Trees in this Alaska forest tilt because the ground beneath them, which was once perma-
nently frozen, has thawed. SOURCE: NOAA.
53

FIGURE 3.8 Researchers sample a dead spruce at treeline in northeastern Alaska. SOURCE: Susy Ellison.
and further research is needed to understand whether this result will be seen in other
forest types or whether trees will instead be stressed by warmer temperatures (Figure
3.8). Warming will likely result in a poleward migration of the northern treeline and the
invasion of shrubs into the tundra. The cascading ecological impacts (e.g., on bears,
caribou, small mammals, and insects) and potential geographic limitations on shifts in
boreal forest cover are unknown. In the tundra, shrubs are replacing lichens and other
tundra vegetation (USGCRP, 2009). Recent evidence indicates that coastal permafrost
thaw and associated sedimentation has facilitated a shift in Black Brant goose (Branta
bernicla nigricans) population distribution from inland lakes to coastal areas (Tape et
al., 2013).
Species with value to small local communities may become more available, as already
seen with the increased catches of salmon in the northern Chukchi Sea (Carothers et
al., 2013). Increasing abundances of commercially important pelagic fish or benthic
invertebrates could result in the development of new Arctic fisheries, once sufficient
understanding of the ecosystem is available to sustainably regulate that activity.
However, new Arctic fisheries may have different social and economic impacts on
54

Emerging Questions
different communities and groups, as some may have declining opportunities while
the opportunities of others improve. Locally important terrestrial species may decline.
For example, caribou are an important food source for some indigenous communities,
and they in turn rely on the lichen that is being replaced by shrubs in some parts of
the tundra (USGCRP, 2009). The change in ranges of species and populations of species
also affects genetic diversity and increases the potential for hybridization between
congeneric species, such as between the Calanus glacialis and C. finmarchicus in the
eastern Arctic (Parent et al., 2012) and between grizzly (Ursus arctos horriblis) and polar
bears (Ursus maritimus) (Kelly et al., 2010).
Trophic interactions modulate ecosystem responses to climate change in the Arctic
(Post et al., 2009). For example, herbivory (e.g., grazing by reindeer and musk oxen)
shapes plant productivity and community responses to warming, which may, in turn,
be mediated by changes in predator or decomposer communities. Such interactions
are fundamental in shaping complex feedback processes between consumers and
resources. These processes are not easily captured by studies of dynamics at single
trophic levels, and more detailed studies are required to determine the role of climate
warming in trophic dynamics (e.g., Roslin et al., 2013), especially in aquatic systems,
soils, and sediments.
Warming changes the ecology of infectious agents and influences the emergence of
disease in humans, domestic animals, plants, and wildlife. For example, warming in the
Arctic has altered the transmission, development rates, and distribution of an impor-
tant parasitic nematode of musk oxen in the Canadian Arctic (Kutz et al., 2005). The
potential for new and expanded parasite and disease pressures for wildlife will have
ramifications for northern communities, and the subsistence harvest of species that
sustains many of these populations. Changing distributions of disease-bearing insects
such as ticks (Lyme disease), parasites, or pathogens (e.g., the skin disease affecting
seals and walrus observed in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas) could have both direct
and indirect negative impacts on humans. However, there is only a very basic founda-
tion for understanding responses to climate change of other hostparasite systems in
the Arctic (Kutz et al., 2005).
Looking ahead, when summer sea ice is gone and light limitations are lessened in
spring through summer and autumn, what will be the next rate-limiting factor that
will determine the ecology? Perhaps iron? How will the northernmost land fauna
adapt to a warming climate, when they are unable to migrate farther north? As the
Arctic readjusts to new conditions, what potential trophic flips are in store?
55

HIDDEN ARCTIC
Emerging Questions for the Hidden Arctic

H1. What surprises are hidden within and beneath the ice?
H2. What is being irretrievably lost as the Arctic changes?
H3. Why does winter matter?
H4. What can break or brake glaciers and ice sheets?
H5. How unusual is the current Arctic warmth?
H6. What is the role of the Arctic in abrupt change?
H7. What has been the Cenozoic evolution of the Arctic Ocean Basin?
The Arctic has long been hidden from most of Earths inhabitants. Physical access
to key geologic and other archives has been limited by sea ice cover, terrestrial ice
cover, lack of research icebreakers, lack of terrestrial infrastructure, limited access, and
the sporadic nature of international research campaigns. Much of what was previ-
ously concealed by logistical challenges is becoming increasingly accessible, aided by
reduced sea ice, greatly improved remote sensing, and advances in instrumentation,
analytical tools, and observational platforms. This means we can now discover what
has long been unseeable.
However, significant logistical, political, and financial challenges to the full realiza-
tion of these new opportunities will persist. Much of our current research is centered
around hypothesis testing, through proposals designed with convincing evidence of
feasibility. The rapid changes that are anticipated in the coming decades include the
likely threshold behavior and challenges to resilience that are less well understood
than steady state processes (see Investing in Research section in Chapter 4).
As both sea ice and glacier ice retreat, what surprises will be revealed? How will land
ice retreat? How will accelerated melting and glacier dynamics affect ice loss and
therefore rates of sea level rise? Now that we will be able to access the Arctic basin
more easily, what will we learn about the geologic evolution of sea ice loss?
What will the future Arctic look like? Archives in the sediments beneath the sea and
lakes, along with records from within and beneath glacier ice, can tell us a great deal
about how the Arctic responded during warm periods in the geologic past. Similarly,
56

Emerging Questions
both sediment and ice archives help in understanding the Arctics role in abrupt
change.
What will we learn about the Arctics past from sedimentary archives accessed
through lake and ocean drilling and proxies contained in ice cores?
How is the large-scale opening of the Arctic shelves changing interactions
among ice, ocean, atmosphere, ecology, and society?
What surprises will be revealed as we map the Arctic?
What new perspectives will be revealed through genomic and microbial
analyses?
What Surprises Are Hidden Within and Beneath the Ice?
Within the Permafrost
Permafrost holds vast stores of carbon, including gas hydrates (sometimes called
methane clathrates). What are the consequences of releasing subsea gas hydrates
or terrestrial methane and CO2 held in permafrost? The potential for rapid release of
methane, as may already be occurring from permafrost areas on the shelf of the East
Siberian Sea, is a possibility but poorly understood (IPCC, 2007). About 10,400 giga-
tonnes of methane are currently stored in hydrate deposits, more than 13 times the
amount of carbon in the atmosphere (Dickens, 2003; Kennett et al., 2008). The poten-
tial for exploitation of gas hydrates is also of great interest in many areas, including the
Arctic, but with uncertain prospects for commercial application. Tremendous stores of
carbon (over 1.7 gigatonnes) are also trapped in terrestrial permafrost, almost twice
the amount of carbon present in the atmosphere (Schuur et al., 2009). The potential
consequences of carbon release from these reservoirs remain poorly understood.
The frozen, dark, oxygen-deprived environment beneath ice sheets where there is
no basal flow, beneath permanent snowbanks, and within permafrost is ideal for the
preservation of organic remains and biomolecules (e.g., DNA) that otherwise have
poor preservation potential if subaerially exposed. Unexpected finds of organic hu-
man artifacts as snowbanks have melted back in Alaska have offered new revelations
about the early human enterprise (Dixon et al., 2007), and ancient mammal DNA in
bones recovered from permafrost allow reconstruction of population density changes
through time (Shapiro et al., 2004).
57

Within the Ice
Various physical and chemical proxies preserved in ice cores, particularly from Green-
land and Antarctica, have provided some of the most compelling evidence for abrupt
climate shifts in the past and for changes in atmospheric composition and circulation
on timescales of decades to millennia. It is reasonable to presume that there remain
unrealized proxies preserved within the ice that future research may uncover. The un-
paralleled resolution and age control that make ice cores optimal archives of the past
warrant continued searches for new environmental proxies in ice.
Beneath the Ice
In many settings, thin ice caps on low-relief terrain act as preservation agents, rather
than erosive agents, preserving intact even the most delicate features of the pre-
glacial landscape, including rooted tundra plants and the soils in which they lived, that
are now being revealed as ice caps recede under unusually warm summers. Rooted
tundra plants that have been entombed for millennia allow insights into past summer
temperatures (Miller et al., 2013), and ancient DNA preserved in sub-ice soils allows
greater fidelity in the reconstruction of ancient environments (Willerslev et al., 2007).
Within 1 to 3 years of subaerial exposure, these important, widespread climate and
environmental archives are lost forever, emphasizing the emerging need for compre-
hensive sampling as ice caps rapidly recede.
For up to 9 months landfast sea ice mantles the shallow shelves fringing the Arctic
coasts of North America and Eurasia that receive the bulk of the river runoff to the Arc-
tic Ocean. The landfast ice zone also encompasses areas of shallow sub-sea permafrost,
so thermodynamic perturbations to this zone may have consequences on methane
release from the seabed. Much of our understanding of wind- and buoyancy-forced
shelf circulation derives from mid-latitude studies, but we cannot readily transfer
these lessons to the Arctic when landfast ice shields the underlying shelf waters from
the direct influence of the wind. The landfast ice zone dynamically partitions the shelf
into two regions, one where winds and drifting ice govern the circulation and one
where shorefast ice controls the inner shelf flow. River outflows form shallow, buoyant
currents that are typically restricted to within 20 km of the coast (Chant, 2011) so that
their natural trapping scale is within the width of landfast ice zones. Models sug-
gest sluggish alongshore, under-ice flows, ice-edge jets, and complicated secondary
cross-shelf circulation cells that inhibit mass and material exchanges with the outer
shelf (Kasper and Weingartner, 2012). These dynamical differences have implications
for the transport of contaminants introduced into shelf waters, and they suggest that
58

Emerging Questions
biogeochemical processes might evolve quite differently between the two portions of
the shelf. Understanding these issues has implications for the formation of dense shelf
waters in winter, the seasonal evolution of shelf stratification, and the fate of materials
borne by the plume. It also has implications pertaining to the biological connectivity
of adjacent shelves, since buoyancy-forced coastal currents are potentially capable of
flowing along vast shore distances.
What Is Being Irretrievably Lost as the Arctic Changes?
The loss of snow and ice is uncovering parts of the Arctic, but at the same time much
is being lost. Coastal and riverbank erosion threatens villages and archeological sites
(Brunner and Lynch, 2010; GAO, 2003; Lochner, 2012) (see, e.g., Figure 3.9). Nearly all
coastal sites are being impacted by erosion due to changing sea levels, and stronger
FIGURE 3.9 A nearly century-old whaling boat in July 2007 along the Beaufort Sea coast near Lonely,
Alaska. The boat washed away to sea just a few months later as a result of erosion. SOURCE: Benjamin
Jones, USGS.
59

storms that are destroying archeological sites that have never been documented
because of the vast extent of the coastline. Archeological sites are also at risk from a
rising water table due to sea level rise (e.g., Coffrey and Beavers, 2013). Well-preserved
organic artifacts previously protected within the cryosphere are being exposed by re-
treating ice (e.g., Andrews and MacKay, 2012). The least understood and documented
loss is that of riparian sites due to ice-jam floods and riverbank erosion (e.g., Ott et
al., 2001). This loss of information affects future excavations and our understanding
of how people adapted and lived in the past. This record is now recognized to have
major value to bioscience (aDNA, stable isotopes, etc.), paleoclimatology, and culture,
and it has huge potential for expanded joint investigation. Iceland and Greenland,
for example, offer the rare combination of archeological sites and contemporaneous
written records, but many are threatened by thawing and decomposition. This threat
is urgent and widespread. There is a great need for coordinated logistics, combined
international resource application, and well-designed response strategies that will
combine mitigation with a coherent interdisciplinary science program.
Ecological communities, too, are at risk. Unique freshwater ecosystems on the ice
shelves of Ward Hunt and Ellesmere Islands in the Canadian Arctic have been lost as
the ice shelves disintegrate (Mueller et al., 2003), and freshwater drains to the ocean or
mixes with seawater in the absence of ice barriers. The loss of Arctic features and phe-
nomena that are poorly understood or even unknown is a major challenge, especially
if they are in remote areas where access is difficult, reducing the chances of discovery
and hindering any research efforts even if discoveries are made.
Climate and environmental change is not the only cause of loss in the Arctic. Arctic
languages are also being lost rapidly (Barry et al., 2013) as a result of social and other
changes. A wealth of cultural practice and traditional knowledge is lost as languages
diminish and disappear. Although not a new trend, language loss may be increasing
in the face of modern media and telecommunications. At the same time, however, in-
formation technology and education reforms have provided new ways to support and
perpetuate the use of languages spoken by relatively few people, providing hope for a
change in the overall trend.
Difficult decisions may be necessary concerning what can be saved and what cannot.
The ability to respond rapidly in cases of imminent disappearance depends on fund-
ing, logistics, cooperation, and other planning (see Chapter 4). Awareness of what is
being lost is only a first step, but it is a critical one.
60

Emerging Questions
Why Does Winter Matter?
Winter occupies the bulk of the Arctic year. Winter conditions and processes, including
ice formation and snow buildup, determine the timing and patterns of snow and ice
melt in spring, thus affecting physical and biological environments as well as climate
feedbacks. With the observed changes in seasonality, it is increasingly important to
understand what happens in the winter and how winter processes affect conditions
for the rest of the year.
Only a few studies to date have focused on this period of the annual cycle, especially
in the biological sciences, in part because of a misplaced perception that the systems
are essentially dormant during winter and in part because of difficulty in accessing
those ecosystems, given the harsh winter conditions and the barrier of sea ice or of
deep snow. This relative lack of knowledge has compromised our ability to understand
the winter ecology of many organisms and to model these systems over the full an-
nual cycle, ultimately limiting our ability to predict the ecosystems response to ongo-
ing climate change.
Hidden beneath sea ice and snow, the ecology of the winter biota of the Arctic marine
and terrestrial systems remains elusive. We now understand that, rather than being
dormant or dead during winter, the biota of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems
retain some activity during the cold, dark winter months (e.g., Darnis et al., 2012; Sturm
et al., 2005). We also now have the technology to better study aspects of these systems
during this forbidding period of the year. The reduction of thick, multiyear ice over a
significant portion of the Arctic Ocean also may permit better access by research ves-
sels during winter.
In the ocean, winter conditions are critical to the present-day density stratification that
defines much of Arctic oceanography, and changing stratification is key to heat stor-
age and energy release. Process studies are needed to understand how future winters
may differ from today. If summer is ice free and the halocline breaks down through
strong wind mixing and other processes, what will be the impact on winter ice forma-
tion in the central Arctic Ocean (see Chapter 3, Emerging Question E3)? Wind mixing is
usually only significant down to 10 m, thus it is not likely that wind alone will destroy
stratification. But with changing conditions in the shelf seas, stratification may be
weakened enough to allow large polynyas to develop where deep convection could
occur within the Arctic Ocean. An Antarctic analog for this is the Weddell Sea (Gordon
et al., 2007). How could such a change impact local changes in marine ecosystems,
as well as global redistribution of heat through the Atlantic Meridional Overturning
Circulation (AMOC; see Chapter 3, Emerging Question C3)?
61

What Can Break or Brake Glaciers and Ice Sheets?
Over the last decade, Arctic ice masses, in particular the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS),
have continued to offer new surprises. Supraglacial lake water has been shown to
hydrofracture through more than a kilometer of ice to reach the bed, causing localized
acceleration of ice flow (Das et al., 2008; Joughin et al., 2013; Zwally et al., 2002), with
local effects propagating inland through stress coupling (Price et al., 2008). Meltwater
and subglacial hydrology has been shown to be an important, yet poorly understood,
control on sliding dynamics (Schoof, 2010; Shepherd et al., 2009). Water produced from
surface melting may refreeze at depth, resulting in englacial (within the glacier) warm-
ing from latent heat release (Phillips et al., 2013) and/or it may persist in storage, both
englacially and subglacially (Rennermalm et al., 2012) as well as in saturated zones of
glacial firn (ice that is in the intermediate stage between snow and glacial ice) (For-
ster et al., 2014; Humphrey et al., 2012). Outlet glaciers from the GrIS have undergone
rapid fluctuations in flow speed and calving rate (Howat et al., 2005; Howat et al., 2007;
Joughin et al., 2004; Joughin et al., 2008). Increases in flow velocity have propagated
to the north (Khan et al., 2014; Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006). Large Antarctic scale
calving events have begun in North Greenland outlet glaciers (Falkner et al., 2011) (see
Figure 3.10). Beneath the ice, new subglacial topography mapping has revealed exten-
sive, never before seen subglacial canyons comparable in scale to the Grand Canyon
(Bamber et al., 2013). On the surface, a confluence of factors combined in the summer
of 2012 to produce surface melting on 97 percent of the GrIS, the scale of which, while
not unprecedented in the climate history reconstructed from ice cores, has not been
observed since systematic satellite observations began in the 1970s (Nghiem et al.,
2012). Although they are not large reservoirs of stored fresh water, smaller glaciers and
ice caps are losing mass at a much faster rate than the GrIS, and as such are currently
the dominant cryospheric contributor to sea level rise (IPCC, 2013; Meier et al., 2007).
These new observations and discoveries highlight the need for persistent and per-
vasive observation and process studies on land ice in the cryosphere, for both small
glaciers and the GrIS. Many of the findings cited above were made possible through
remote-sensing campaigns, both satellite and airborne. In particular, the intensive
Operation IceBridge air campaigns have enabled change detection in particularly
fast-changing regions. Field instrumentation campaigns have also been critical in
developing these observations and findings, underscoring the need for continued
field research. Finally, model-based process studies of ice sheet behavior in a warming
climate have helped shed light on the causes of positive and negative feedbacks, and
such studies need to be continued and strengthened.
62

Emerging Questions
FIGURE 3.10 The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASAs Aqua satellite
observed Petermann Glacier and an iceberg calving and drifting downstream, July 1617, 2012. At 1025
UTC on July 16 (top image), the iceberg was still close to the glacier. At 1200 UTC that same day (middle),
the iceberg had started moving northward down the fjord. Thin clouds partially obscure the downstream
view. One day later, at 09:30 UTC on July 17 (bottom), a larger opening between the glacier and the
iceberg, as well as some breakup of the thinner, downstream ice, was clearly visible. SOURCE: NASA Earth
Observatory.
63

Breaking Glaciers and Ice Sheets
Are there positive feedback mechanisms hidden at the ice-bed interface that we
have yet to appreciate and understand? Is there a threshold at which the coupling
between ice and bed will become weaker? How is inland ice deformed internally by
warming through latent heat transported by percolating meltwater from events such
as the widespread surface melt of Greenland in summer 2012? What effect will warm-
ing ocean water have on sea-terminating outlet glaciers and ice shelves? What is the
interplay among surface melt, basal hydrology, and enhanced ice motion? These are
currently among the most pressing questions in glaciology because of the strong
influence Greenland could have on the rate of future sea level rise.
Braking the Current Decline of Land Ice Cover
Is there any potential negativefeedback mechanism that would slow the rates of
sliding and internal deformation that carry ice to low-elevation ablation areas (areas
where loss of snow and ice occurs)? For example, the thinning of the GrIS results in a
lower basal shear stress . Is there a threshold where the coupling between ice and bed
will become stronger, resisting further change? Will evolving subglacial hydrological
systems in a warming climate reduce the accelerating effect of meltwater at the bed?
The search for new, unanticipated feedback mechanisms requires innovative mea-
sures: new process-based modeling studies, in particular of the ice/bed interface in
the presence of liquid water; new technologies to determine the location and charac-
terization of liquid water at the ice/bed interface; and new means for making obser-
vations at the difficult-to-access calving fronts of fjord-terminating glaciers. Ongoing
observations of ice topography and flow rates would help assess the evolution of
negative feedback mechanisms, as indicated by changes in flow rates and driving
stresses. Finally, new remote-sensing platforms on multiple scales (e.g., unmanned aer-
ial vehicles [UAVs], aircraft, spacecraft) will enable a sharper focus on current events in
glacier and ice sheet motion, allowing us to identify these new feedbacks as and when
they begin to take effect.
How Unusual Is the Current Arctic Warmth?
Arctic Ocean sea ice loss during recent decades has exceeded most model projections,
leading to an emerging recognition that sea ice may be more sensitive to climate
forcing than previously anticipated. In this context, understanding the paleo-record
64

Emerging Questions
of both the appearance and the loss of sea ice is especially important now, given the
increasing accessibility of archives and new geochemical and paleoenvironmental
tools to track the evolution of sea ice from sedimentary archives. Focused research
into quantifying the dimensions and distribution of sea ice and on the status of land
ice during known past warm times in Earths history, when continental configurations
were similar to present, will inform our understanding of the sensitivity of Arctic ice to
changing radiative forcing and ocean circulation patterns (Polyakov et al., 2010) and
thereby improve our projections of the future Arctic.
Key warm periods in the past, when Arctic summer temperatures were higher than the
20th-century average, are given in Table 3.1.
Analyses of previous warm periods in the geological record indicate that there have
been several extended time periods when sea ice was absent or only present in winter,
or when there was less extensive summer ice than the 20th-century average, in the
Arctic Ocean (e.g., Backman and Moran, 2009; Ballantyne et al., 2013; Brigham-Grette
et al., 2013; St John, 2008), and when the GrIS was much reduced. In the early Cenozoic,
the pole-equator temperature difference was much less than it currently is, and mean
annual temperatures were at least 20 C warmer than present at 71 N (Markwick,
1998; Tarduno et al., 1998; Vandermark et al., 2007). Arctic Ocean surface waters
reached ~20 C during the warm PaleoceneEocene Thermal Maximum, ~55 Ma ago
(Sluijs et al., 2006), precluding permanent sea ice (Moran et al., 2006). Grains sand-sized
and coarser found in marine sediment far from land (ice-rafted debris [IRD]) likely
required ice-transport, either by calving glaciers or sea ice, although floating trees
and other debris may also contribute to the delivery of coarse material far from shore.
Rare IRD and sea-ice diatoms first appear in Arctic Ocean sediment ~47 Ma (St John,
2008; Stickley et al., 2009), and suggest seasonal sea ice may have been initiated then,
although the conditions necessary to sustain persistent ice in the Arctic Ocean remain
poorly understood.
A continuous high-resolution lacustrine record, supported by fragmentary paleonto-
logical data, suggests that during the mid-Pliocene (~3.5 Ma) summer temperatures
were ~8 C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 ppmv
(Brigham-Grette et al., 2013). Alley et al. (2010) summarized the Cenozoic history of the
GrIS. Based on IRD distributions, calving glaciers may have been present on Greenland
as early as 16 Ma (Moran et al., 2006), but establishment of a GrIS probably occurred
after the mid-Pliocene, when large increases in IRD flux occurred throughout the
northern North Atlantic. However, warm intervals, including one or more intervals of
reforested Greenland, occurred after initial formation of a GrIS (Funder et al., 2001;
Willerslev et al., 2007). Particularly warm intervals of the mid-to-late Quaternary are
65

TABLE 3.1 Past Warm Periods

Arctic Temperature
Carbon Dioxide with Respect to 20th-
Time Interval Concentration Century Average Environmental Conditions
Early Holocene 260 ppmv Summers 2 to 3 C Reduced sea and land ice, possibly
thermal maximum warmer seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean;
(10 to 5 ka) Greenland Ice Sheet smaller
Marine Isotope ~310 ppmv Summers 2 to 8 C Sea level 5 m higher than present; high
Stage (MIS) 5e; warmer seasonality; greatly reduced summer
(130 to 120 ka) sea ice; intensified flux of Atlantic water
into the Arctic Ocean. Ice-free Arctic
lands, except for Greenland, which was
reduced by 2 to 4 m sea-level equivalent,
and some mountains higher than 5 km
Marine Isotope ~285 ppmv Summers warmer than Longer (~30 ka) warm interval; sea level
Stage (MIS)-11 but 30 ka during MIS 5e 93 m higher.
(424 to 374 ka) duration Summers similar to Greenland ice sheet smaller
MIS-31 MIS 11
(~1.1 Ma) ~325 ppmv
Mid-Pliocene ~400 ppm Summers 10 to Warm temperature anomalies in both

(3.5 Ma) 20 C warmer; seasons persisted for several hundred
winter temperature thousand years, longer than orbital tilt/
anomalies larger than precession cycles; sea level 20 to 40 m
summer anomalies higher than present; ice-free Arctic
Ocean in summer, possibly year round.
No Greenland Ice Sheet; glaciers in
North America limited to rare, cirque,
and valley glaciers.
Early Cenozoic ~2000 to ~500 Even greater Occurred before the Antarctic Ice Sheet
(70 to 50 Ma) ppmv temperature and sea was established. This era may provide
level departures than evidence of oceanic circulation regimes
in the mid-Pliocene that expand the range of plausible
future ocean circulation patterns, even
though continental configurations
differed substantially from present.
66

Emerging Questions
Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 31 (~1.1 Ma), when summers were up to 4 to 5 C higher
than the Holocene (Melles et al., 2012); MIS 11c (~0.4 Ma), when summers were also
4 to 5 C higher than the Holocene (Melles et al., 2012) and CO2 was ~285 ppmv, less
than in MIS 5e but of much longer duration (30 ka) (Siegenthaler et al., 2005); the GrIS
was much smaller than present (Willerslev et al., 2007); and sea level was 6 to 13 m
higher than today (Raymo and Mitrovica, 2012). During the last Interglaciation, MIS 5e
(~125 ka), summers were similarly warm (Miller et al., 2010, and references therein),
the GrIS was about a third smaller than present, and sea level was +5 m (Overpeck et
al., 2006). MIS 5e and 31 also had strong insolation forcing, with coincidence of high
obliquity, eccentricity, and precession resulting in perihelion coinciding with boreal
summer. During the Holocene, the present interglaciation (the past 12 ka), the Arctic
was warmest between 9 and 6 ka, with summers 1.70.8 C above the 20th-century
average (Kaufman et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2010, and references therein). As Greenland
has been steadily losing mass in recent years (Svendsen et al., 2013), an emerging real-
ization is that more complete Arctic-wide environmental reconstructions for intervals
when the GrIS was substantially smaller than present may provide important con-
straints on the future state of the Arctic.
Understanding the local and global conditions associated with these times will help us
to better anticipate future changes. How sensitive is sea ice to warming? How might
biota respond? How much of the GrIS could be lost and at what rate? How might
precipitation, freshwater discharge, and ocean circulation patterns shift? Is the mid-
Pliocene a realistic analog for a future Earth equilibrated with current greenhouse gas
concentrations and other forcings?
Increased access to the central Arctic Ocean offers opportunities to extract marine
sediment cores that are expected to provide a more complete history of Arctic Ocean
circulation and surface conditions through the late Cenozoic. A substantial challenge
is the development of improved proxies that are directly linked to specific concentra-
tions of sea ice. Emerging tools in organic geochemistry are the arena where new sea-
ice proxies are most likely to be developed.
What Is the Role of the Arctic in Abrupt Change?
From a human perspective (as from that of much of the rest of the biosphere), the rate
of change is more important than the magnitude of change, and both extreme events
and nonlinearities (abrupt change) are likely to be our greatest future challenges.
67

Abrupt change refers to changes in the physical climate system and abrupt impacts in
physical, biological, or social systems triggered by a gradually changing climate over
a timescale of years to decades. Rapid change is more problematic for societal adap-
tation than regular, gradual change because it is unpredicted and unexpected and
hence unprepared for, forcing reactive rather than proactive behavior. These changes
may propagate systemically, rapidly affecting multiple interconnected areas within
and beyond the Arctic (NRC, 2013).
Because of strong positive feedbacks and teleconnections to the global system, the
Arctic may be the region most likely to face these challenges, which may in turn result
in abrupt change in distant regions. A recent NRC report, Abrupt Impacts of Climate
Change: Anticipating Surprises, identified the disappearance of late-summer Arctic sea
ice as an abrupt climate change that is already happening, and outlined the potential
climate surprises that could occur as a result of methane release from permafrost and
methane hydrates (NRC, 2013). As access to key climate archives increases, we will gain
a better understanding of how abrupt changes have occurred in the past, to shed light
on how they may happen in the future.
Naturally Forced Abrupt Climate Change in the Holocene
The increasing distance of Earth from the Sun during Northern Hemisphere summer
since ~11 ka, caused by Earths orbital irregularities, led to a decay of Northern Hemi-
sphere incoming solar radiation in the summer, especially across the Arctic. Earth is
currently close to its Northern Hemisphere summer insolation minimum, after which
summer insolation will begin to slowly increase again. An emerging realization is
that, as Northern Hemisphere summer insolation decayed, the high latitudes cooled
irregularly (Wanner et al., 2011), with local to regional evidence for abrupt, step-wise,
environmental change (Geirsdottir et al., 2013). Evidence of, and an explanation for,
abrupt shifts under uniform, hemispherically symmetric insolation forcing are emerg-
ing research questions.
Volcanism
Sulfur-rich explosive volcanism can inject SO2 into the stratosphere, where it rapidly
converts to sulfuric acid aerosols that cool Earths surface but warm the stratosphere
for 1 to 3 years (Robock, 2004). A series of decadally-spaced eruptions may have
a more sustained climate impact (Schneider et al., 2009). What remains hidden is
whether explosive volcanism served as a trigger for abrupt climate change during the
68

Emerging Questions
Holocene that persisted for decades to centuries, and whether the sensitivity of the
Arctic system to explosive volcanism is dependent on the background state (Zanchet-
tin et al., 2013).
Solar Irradiance
There is an extensive literature evaluating the role of solar irradiance variability on the
climate evolution of the past millennium (e.g., Mann et al., 2009), although the likely
range of solar irradiance variability on centennial timescales has been reduced in
recent years (Schmidt et al., 2011). The largest remaining uncertainty is likely whether
changes in the UV spectral strength of solar radiation impact stratospheric circulation
through ozone formation in such a way that it strongly impacts the Arctic system.
What Has Been the Cenozoic Evolution of the Arctic Ocean Basin?
Our understanding of the geologic history of the Arctic Ocean has been inhibited by
our inability to recover key sedimentary archives and underlying crustal rocks from
the central Arctic Ocean. Instead, the history of the region has been derived from
extrapolation of geophysical data and incomplete industry well data and land-based
outcrops. With the exception of a single long record from the Lomonsov Ridge that
extends back to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM; ~56 Ma) with several
hiatuses, there is a serious lack of direct evidence to reconstruct the evolution of the
Arctic Ocean Basin and its climate history. Understanding the tectonic evolution of
the Arctic Basin can in turn inform our understanding of ocean circulation and bio-
geography, topics that were discussed in greater detail in the previous section on the
Evolving Arctic. As it becomes possible to drill into the Arctic Basin seafloor, it becomes
practical for the first time to study these important research topics.
Ridges, sediment-filled basins, stranded extended crustal blocks, and seamounts of
unknown origins dominate the complex bathymetry of the Arctic Ocean Basin (Figure
3.11). These features, which are still not well studied, record the tectonic and magmatic
evolution of this ocean basin. The Lomonosov Ridge is thought to be an extended
crustal block that rifted off the Kara Shelf in northern Russia. The Lomonosov Ridge
divides the Arctic Ocean into two basinsan eastern part referred to as the Eurasian
Basin and a western part known as the Amerasian Basin. The Gakkel Ridge in the
middle of the Eurasian Basin is the northernmost extension of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
and has the characteristics of a typical mid-ocean ridge. The Gakkel Ridge divides the
Eurasian Basin into two smaller basinsNansen and Amundsen. The Alpha Ridge and
69

FIGURE 3.11 Bathymetric features of the Arctic Ocean Basin. SOURCE: Mike Norton, Premier Oil.
Mendeleev Ridge divide the Amerasian Basin into the Makarov Basin and Canada Ba-
sin. The Alpha and Mendeleev Ridges may represent, at least in part, hotspot volcanic
tracks, although data remain rather scarce for a definitive assessment.
Development of the Amerasian Basin
As year-round sea ice continues to retreat in the Arctic Ocean, large areas of the Am-
erasian Basin are made accessible to a variety of studies, including the ocean floor for
its bathymetric features, geological structures, volcanic eruption history, and sedi-
mentation. The geological development and evolution of this basin remains poorly
70

Emerging Questions
understood because until only recently many important submarine structures, such as
faults, ridges, and volcanic lineaments, have been inaccessible because of sea ice and
therefore have remained unmapped. The Canada Basin is bordered by North America
on the southeast and the Chuckchi Plateaua block of extended continental crust
on the northwest. Based on limited data, it has been proposed that the Canada Basin
opened by counterclockwise rotation of this crustal block and its collision with the
Siberian margin. This is known as the windshield wiper model for basin opening, and
its verification hinges on whether future studies definitively identify magnetic anoma-
lies in the central Canada Basin.
High Arctic Large Igneous Province
Large igneous provinces (LIPs) that have erupted in both marine and terrestrial
environments throughout Earths history are thought to cause environmental devas-
tation, and perhaps even mass extinctions, because of the massive volumes of mate-
rial erupted onto Earths surface in what is presumed to be a short amount of time
(~ 1 million years). This hypothesis notwithstanding, there has never been a satisfac-
tory demonstration that indeed LIPs are emplaced in only ~ 1 million years. This is be-
cause they are too thick (up to 35 km) to drill through to obtain samples for dating of
the entire volcanic sequence. The High Arctic Large Igneous Province (HALIP) centered
on the Alpha and Mendeleev Ridges of the western Arctic Ocean offers a unique op-
portunity to test the model about its emplacement inasmuch as its eruptive history is
recorded in the sedimentary record of Canada Basin. Drilling through a few kilometers
of sediments is a much easier proposition than drilling through tens of kilometers of
volcanic material in relatively deep water.
CONNECTED ARCTIC
Emerging Questions for the Connected Arctic

C1. How will rapid Arctic warming change the jet stream and affect weather patterns in
lower latitudes?
C2. What is the potential for a trajectory of irreversible loss of Arctic land ice, and how will
its impact vary regionally?
C3. How will climate change affect exchanges between the Arctic Ocean and subpolar
basins?
71

C4. How will Arctic change affect the long-range transport and persistence of biota?
C5. How will changing societal connections between the Arctic and the rest of the world
The Arctic is connected with the global system through a variety of mechanisms, both
direct and indirect (Figure 3.12). These linkages span physical, biological, social, and
economic realms. Thus, as the Arctic undergoes a profound physical transformation
to what has been described as a new normal of the Anthropocene and residents
FIGURE 3.12 The Arctic system is made up of various components, including a complex network of
process interactions, interdependent feedbacks, thresholds, and linkages with lower latitudes (e.g., warm
water inflows/cold water outflows). There are many interconnections among system components, and
important changes in one component may influence numerous other parts of both the Arctic and global
systems. SOURCE: Roberts et al., 2010.
72

Emerging Questions
begin to experience the effects of globalization, profound changes in the entire global
system are expected.
The Arctic is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the Northern Hemisphere,
resulting in the loss of approximately 75 percent of the volume of summer sea ice
in only 3 decades, greatly increased surface melting on Greenland, unprecedented
thinning and retreat of glaciers, thawing of permafrost, and marked warming of the
Arctic Ocean surface (Blunden and Arndt, 2013). Because of the Arctics essential role
in Earths heat engine that drives global-scale air currents, it is unlikely that changes
of this magnitude would not have an impact on the large-scale atmospheric circula-
tion. Those responses may become more widespread as greenhouse gases continue
to accumulate. Conversely, changes in tropical and mid-latitude temperature patterns
will also affect wind patterns, which, in turn, will influence Arctic change. A variety
of positive feedbacks amplify these effects. Great uncertainty revolves around the
linkages among changes in the Arctic freshwater system (e.g., increased precipitation
and river runoff, decreased sea ice, earlier snow melt in spring) and potential impacts
on physical and biological systems within and beyond the Arctic (Francis et al., 2009).
Understanding the details of these interactions is in its infancy, but its importance is
difficult to overstate.
People living in temperate latitudes are beginning to care about the impact of Arc-
tic changes on their way of life. According to a recent polling study by Hamilton and
Lemcke-Stampone (2013), the public generally accepts that the widely publicized
disintegrating sea ice in the Arctic is affecting mid-latitude weather patterns. Further,
an individuals responses to poll questions are tempered by the weather conditions
prevailing just prior to being interviewed, among other factors (Figure 3.13). The
potential for a causal linkage between Arctic amplification (enhanced warming in the
Arctic compared to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere) (see, e.g., Pistone et al., 2014)
and mid-latitude weather resonates with the public in terms of recognizing the im-
mediacy of climate change.
Connections are also apparent in considering how the Arctic will respond to climate
change, including mitigation and learning from others experiences. Anthropogenic
carbon emissions are predominantly from mid-latitudes, and thus addressing the
major driver of Arctic climate change will require action outside the Arctic. The cost of
adaptation measures in the Arctic, such as erosion control, is likely to be much higher
than what Arctic residents or societies can afford, and mitigation therefore will require
funding from sources largely outside the Arctic (e.g., Huntington et al., 2012). As the
impacts of climate change are felt throughout the world, successful responses can
be shared with other societies and regions, and collective actions can be considered.
73

FIGURE 3.13 Predicted probability of major effects response as a function of a 2-day temperature
anomaly. SOURCE: Hamilton and Lemcke-Stampone (2013).
Many ongoing research efforts are focused on these changes (see existing questions
below). This section highlights emerging questions related to interactions between
the rapidly warming and thawing cryosphere and the physical, biological, and social
systems south of Arctic boundaries.
Which factors are most important in driving seasonal variability of sea ice, ice
sheets, snow cover, and the active layer over permafrost?
Why do global climate models underestimate the loss of Arctic ice?
How can we quantify the role of climate feedbacks, their variability in space
and time, and their impact on both climatic and environmental variables?
How will changes in atmospheric circulation affect pollutant sources, path-
ways, and processes in Arctic ecosystems and communities?
How will northern communities be affected by societal and environmental
change, both internally and environmentally forced?
74

Emerging Questions
How Will Rapid Arctic Warming Change the Jet Stream

and Affect Weather Patterns in Lower Latitudes?
Several studies based on theory, observations, and models have explored various
mechanisms that may link Arctic amplification with changes in the large-scale atmo-
spheric circulation of the Northern Hemisphere. Some of these proposed mechanisms
include slowing the mid-latitude upper-level westerlies and increasing the amplitude
of planetary waves, with enhanced potential for blocking and more persistent and/
or extreme weather events (e.g., Francis and Vavrus, 2012; Petoukhov et al., 2013; Tang
et al., 2013). Some of these studies provide robust evidence for linkages and some do
not (e.g., Barnes, 2013; Screen et al., 2013; Screen and Simmonds, 2013). This is a rapidly
evolving avenue of research (Palmer, 2013; Vihma, 2014).
What we know about the depletion of the Arctic cryosphere (sea ice, glaciers, snow,
and permafrost), combined with new studies implicating Arctic amplification as a
driver of more frequent extreme weather, has reignited discussions of weather as a
manifestation of climate change (Jeffries et al., 2013; Lynch et al., 2008). Climate model
projections of future Arctic amplification vary widely (Holland and Bitz, 2003), leading
to uncertainty in estimating the response of large-scale circulation as well as weather
patterns. The capability of models to simulate extreme weather events related to the
changing jet stream is also in question. A better understanding of the details of the
response will enable decision makers to prepare for changes ahead. However, predict-
ing these extremes in the short term with numerical weather prediction models and
projecting their variability in the long term with GCMs both present a substantial chal-
lenge. Recent studies suggest that the changing character of the jet stream includes
an increase in blocking patterns and highly amplified flows, demanding realistic
simulations of nonlinear dynamics at mesoscales that at present appear to stymie the
relatively coarse dynamical models used for global weather forecasting and climate
projection (Masato et al., 2013). High-resolution models are generally more successful
in simulating these mechanisms.
Climate models vary in their simulations of past and future Arctic amplification, lead-
ing to uncertainty in the projections of dry static energy transport (Hwang et al., 2011).
Meanwhile, as global temperatures increase, so does the maximum physical limit of
water vapor concentration in the atmosphere. The dependence of water-vapor con-
centration on temperature is not linear, as 1 degree of warming at high temperatures
results in a larger increase in water vapor than at low temperatures. This delicate
interplay adds complexity to projections of changing poleward moisture transport, as
a more rapidly warming Arctic partially offsets the nonlinearity in the temperature/
water-vapor dependence. The importance of knowing future changes in moisture
75

cannot be overstated, as it affects the amount of latent heat energy that fuels storms,
the magnitude of its greenhouse effect, and moisture availability for cloud formation
(which affects the surface radiation budget) and precipitation intensity.
The thermal responses to increasing greenhouse gases in the troposphere and strato-
sphere differ. As vertical atmospheric stratification changes, the exchange of wave en-
ergy between the troposphere and stratosphere is modified (e.g., Cohen et al., 2007).
The impacts of these changes on the large-scale circulation are poorly understood, but
they are likely to affect weather patterns around the Northern Hemisphere.
Modes of natural variability within the coupled ocean-atmosphere system have been
identified and studied (El Nio-Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North-
ern Annular Mode, Quasi-biennial oscillation, etc.), each with its distinctive influence
on the large-scale circulation. Dramatic reduction of sea ice and early-summer snow
on high-latitude land areas, along with increasing atmospheric water vapor, have led
to an emergence of the signal of Arctic amplification from the noise of natural variabil-
ity only within the past decade or two, and most strongly in the autumn and winter.
Because a rapidly warming Arctic is a new driver in the system, little is known about
how natural oscillations and large-scale patterns will interact with its thermodynamic
and dynamic effects.
Arctic vegetation change, too, can contribute to hemispheric weather patterns. Models
suggest that the greening of the tundra has led to greater predominance of high-
pressure systems during the Arctic summer (Jeong et al., 2012). Greener tundra has a
lower albedo than snow-covered tundra, resulting in more absorption of solar radia-
tion. The resulting warming of Eurasia may affect the strength of the Indian summer
monsoon, although current understanding of the combined effects of tundra green-
ing and snow cover changes is incomplete and warrants further investigation.
What Is the Potential for a Trajectory of Irreversible Loss of

Arctic Land Ice, and How Will Its Impact Vary Regionally?
A direct and crucial linkage between the Arctic and global physical systems is the loss
of land-based ice to the ocean and the effect on global sea levels, which will affect
billions of people living in coastal cities around the world. The IPCC AR5 (2013) reports
that the rate of sea level rise has accelerated over the 20th century to an average
of ~3.2 mm per year from 1993 to 2010. Assessments of contributions from various
sources have become more accurate, but large uncertainties remain, especially with
76

Emerging Questions
regard to future projections. Sea level rise from 1993 to 2010 was caused by thermal
expansion of the ocean (~39 percent), glacial changes (~27 percent), land water stor-
age (~13 percent), Greenland (~12 percent), and Antarctica (~9 percent) (IPCC, 2013).
Sea level rise projections for the 21st century vary widely (0.26 to 0.82 m) (IPCC, 2013).
Land-based ice in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., glaciers, ice caps, and the GrIS) will
contribute to future sea level rise. Future loss from the GrIS is the most serious con-
cern, because of its large ice volume, its potential for a sustained long-term impact on
sea level rise, and uncertainty regarding the sensitivity of the mechanisms that main-
tain the ice sheets stability.
The greatest uncertainty in making reliable predictions comes from the inability to
project future ice sheet responses to warmer air and ocean temperatures, the possibil-
ity of outlet glacier destabilization, and even the unlikely but possible rapid collapse of
marine-based sectors of Antarctica (e.g., Pine Island Embayment).
It is now recognized that ocean heat plays an important role in forcing increased ice
discharge via processes such as circulation of the water near the ice, rapid melting of
floating glacier tongues, calving at the glacier terminus, and the glaciers response
(changing terminus position, elevation, and velocity field). Assessing the magnitude
and sensitivity of these various controls (including outlet glacier discharge) on GrIS
stability is essential and requires comprehensive in situ and remotely sensed observa-
tions coupled with advanced modeling studies. Without observational and modeling
improvements, it will be impossible to assess the likelihood and characteristics of a
trajectory (how much and how fast) for irreversible GrIS melt.
Three factors will prevent sea-level rise from being spatially uniform: land subsidence,
differential ocean warming that changes the distribution of water across the planet,
and the huge mass of frozen water on Antarctica and Greenland that exerts a gravi-
tational pull on the surrounding liquid water. As ice sheets lose mass, regions in close
proximity to the major ice sheets will experience lower rates of sea level rise, while
regions farther afield, particularly the tropical Pacific Ocean, will experience higher
rates of sea level rise (Spada et al., 2013). Other factors affecting regional rates of sea
level rise include varying thermal expansion and changes in ocean circulation. Much
uncertainty surrounds the relative roles of these various factors affecting local rates of
sea level rise, including shifting ocean currents in response to changes in wind pat-
terns and ocean density profiles, the thinning rate of the GrIS, and differential rates of
land subsidence, to name just a few.
77

How Will Climate Change Affect Exchanges between

the Arctic Ocean and Subpolar Basins?
The Arctic Ocean, like the Arctic atmosphere, is connected to its lower-latitude com-
plement (Carmack et al., 2010), although the oceanic connections or pathways are
more physically constrained. The Arctic Ocean affects deep water convection through
control on the volume and pathways by which freshwater is exported into the North
Atlantic Ocean through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and through Fram Strait
(Dickson et al., 2002; Serreze et al., 2006). The North Atlantic Ocean is the formation site
for deep water that feeds the meridional overturning circulation. At present the North
Atlantics deep water formation sites are delicately structured in their ability to sus-
tain deep convection (Aagaard and Carmack, 1989; Schlosser et al., 1991). The reviews
of Alley (2007) and Srokosz et al. (2012) underscore the numerous paleoclimatic and
modeling studies indicating that variations in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation (AMOC) have far-reaching effects on global winds, tempera-
tures, and precipitation patterns. These studies also show that changes in the strength
of the AMOC occurred on decadal (abrupt) or centennial to millennial (slow) times-
cales in the past. Rates may change in a warmer world.
Better understanding is needed of the constraints on Arctic freshwater production
and its influence on the AMOC. River runoff feeds a large amount of freshwater into
the Arctic Ocean surface, most of which is exported southward by sea ice and upper-
ocean flux. Increasingly, freshwater discharged from the retreat of the GrIS will play
a role. Understanding the controls on the outflow of freshwater, and hence improv-
ing its predictability, is essential because of its influence on the stratification of the
water column in the Greenland, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Labrador seas, which are
important regions of deep water formation (Aagaard and Carmack, 1989; Jahn et al.,
2010). Massive increases in freshwater export from ice sheet meltwater in the Arctic,
such as occurred during the Younger-Dryas event ~12,000 years ago, are believed to
have caused a shutdown of the AMOC and a major reorganization of Earths climate
(Broecker et al., 1989). The current generation of IPCC models predicts a slowing, but
not an abrupt shutdown, of the AMOC through the 21st century in response to green-
house gas warming (IPCC, 2007). Nevertheless, these forecasts remain uncertain, given
the large scatter among models in the predicted strength of the AMOC, particularly
in their dispersal of liquid freshwater export in narrow boundary currents. There are
large differences among models in their ability to capture interannual variability in the
liquid freshwater export.
The low-salinity upper-ocean waters exported from the Arctic Ocean may have impor-
tant effects on the carbon cycle and ocean acidification processes in the North Atlan-
78

Emerging Questions
tic from changes in stratification, chemical buffering capacity, and the biological up-
take of CO2. For example, an increase in haline stratification, associated with enhanced
freshwater export, will inhibit deep convection and consequently reduce the efficacy
by which atmospheric CO2 is sequestered in the deep ocean. In addition, the total alka-
linity of the freshwater export (either in ice or liquid form) is low and therefore exerts a
diluting effect on carbonate mineral saturation states at the surface.
At present the Arctic Ocean is a sink for anthropogenic CO2 (Anderson et al., 1998) and
accounts for 5 to 14 percent of the global balance of CO2 sources and sinks (Bates and
Mathis, 2009). A continued reduction in sea ice cover and a concomitant enhancement
in phytoplankton production (assuming no nutrient limitation) is expected to further
increase CO2 uptake in Arctic surface waters (Bates, 2006; Fransson et al., 2001). How-
ever, the increased production will also enhance organic matter remineralization in
subsurface waters that will exacerbate ocean acidification. Indeed this appears to be
occurring at present insofar as acidification rates in the Arctic Ocean are substantially
greater than elsewhere in the global ocean (IGBP, 2013). These subsurface waters, hav-
ing a low pH, high dissolved inorganic carbon, and low total alkalinity, are eventually
exported into the North Atlantic (Shadwick et al., 2009; Shadwick et al., 2013), poten-
tially expanding ocean acidification effects there as well.
Outflows from the Arctic Ocean may impact North Atlantic marine communities and
biological production. For example, the freshening associated with the Great Salinity
Anomaly (Dickson et al., 1988) appears to have contributed to a reorganization of the
plankton and fish communities of the North Sea (Edwards et al., 2002). Greene and
Pershing (2007) showed that an increase in low-salinity, Arctic-derived shelf waters
into the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank in the mid-1990s led to a major decadal-scale
shift in zooplankton communities that, together with the vulnerability of the already
overfished stocks, subsequently altered the commercially important cod and haddock
fisheries.
How Will Arctic Change Affect the Long-Range

Transport and Persistence of Biota?
Marine and terrestrial biota in the Arctic are affected by changes in, and trans-
port from, lower latitudes, and changes in the Arctic may influence areas beyond
the Arctic. Transport of expatriate organisms (invasive species ) into the Arctic, by
natural processes and by human activity, for example, has long been recognized4
4 See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131104112713.htm.
79

(Lassuy and Lewis, 2013). In the western Arctic Ocean, copepod species (Figure 3.14)
characteristic of the northern Pacific/Bering Sea have been observed in low but
detectable numbers throughout the Chukchi Sea and extending into the Arctic Basin,
associated with water types of Pacific Ocean origin (e.g., Ashjian et al., 2003; Hopcroft
et al., 2010; Matsuno et al., 2011). During the last decade, transport of a number of ad-
ditional species spanning the benthic and pelagic environments and across multiple
trophic levels (e.g., phytoplankton to seabirds) has been recognized (e.g., Hollowed et
al., 2013; Post et al., 2013; Wassmann et al., 2011). For example, Alaskan salmon are now
much more common, and increasingly utilized as subsistence food, along the Alaskan
north coast in Barrow and Nuiqsut (Carothers et al., 2013). Atlantic cod are abundant
around Svalbard, displacing the endemic polar cod (AWI, 2013; Renaud et al., 2012).
FIGURE 3.14 Researchers deploy a bongo net to sample zooplankton at the ice edge in the Bering Sea
aboard the Research Vessel Thomas G. Thompson. SOURCE: NOAA.
80

Emerging Questions
Transport into a region by itself does not predict that a species can become estab-
lished in that region and persist, potentially permanently displacing endemic species.
The expatriate species may be able to survive in the short term but, because their life
histories and physiology are not adapted to the environmental conditions (e.g., tem-
perature, phenology of production, light cycles), they may not reproduce. For example,
it has been hypothesized that Alaskan salmon cannot reproduce along the north
coast of Alaska (Carothers et al., 2013) and that Bering Sea pollock will not experience
a northward shift in distribution because of persistence of very cold water (<0 C)
at depth in the northern Bering Sea (the cold pool) and further north (Sigler et al.,
2010).
If, on the other hand, subarctic species can adapt to and successfully reproduce in
Arctic conditions, then their biogeographic ranges can expand. In the future, with
warmer temperatures and earlier and potentially higher primary production with a
longer productive season, temperate organisms transported into the Arctic may be
able to persistthat is, to reproduce and maintain populations in the Arctic. It also has
been suggested that temperate species may have better resistance to ocean acidifica-
tion (AWI, 2013). Changes in persistence of expatriate species can result in changes
in community composition, displacement of endemic Arctic species, changes in
pelagic-benthic coupling, changes in the size composition of planktonic and benthic
organisms, and thus the availability of prey for forage fish and seabirds and, ultimately,
marine mammals.
Recognizing colonization by expatriate marine species is difficult because few long-
term records exist (Wassmann et al., 2011). The situation is better for terrestrial eco-
systems, for which there are some long-term records (e.g., Jeffries et al., 2012; Post et
al., 2013). Lack of understanding of physiological tolerances, temperature-dependent
rate processes, and species phenologies also hampers our ability to predict north-
ward expansion of marine and terrestrial organisms. Studies focusing on the potential
for expatriate species to survive and persist, including modeling, observations, and
experimentation to determine species-specific responses and vital rates under varying
environmental conditions, are necessary to gain this predictive capability.
A by-product of many types of phytoplankton is dimethyl sulfide (DMS), which serves
as effective condensation nuclei for the formation of clouds. As the Arctic Ocean tran-
sitions to a seasonally ice-free state, the resulting shifts in distributions and abundance
of phytoplankton are likely to influence DMS production. Large uncertainty surrounds
the magnitude of this change on cloud production within and beyond the Arctic.
81

How Will Changing Societal Connections between the Arctic

and the Rest of the World Affect Arctic Communities?
In social and political terms, the Arctic functions less as a circumpolar unit and more
as a series of northward extensions of individual countries and regions. It is difficult,
for example, to travel from Arctic Canada to Alaska or Greenland without first going
south. Similarly, trade and supply routes typically run north-south rather than east-
west (Box 3.4). Organizations such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Northern
Forum, and the University of the Arctic work against this pattern, making connections
BOX 3.4 BERING STRAIT SHIPPING
Commercial shipping through the Bering Strait promises both economic gains and threat-
ens cultural and environmental disturbance (Arctic Council, 2009). The governance of shipping
is a matter of policy and regulation, but scientific findings can contribute to decision-making
processes in several ways.
As a business matter, shipping to and through the Arctic will depend on global markets for
the commodities being transported and the viability of Arctic routes as shipping lanes. Under-
standing Arctic economic activity in a global context can help assess the likely trajectories of
development, including shipping. The loss of summer sea ice is the key factor in opening the
Arctic to commercial vessels. Predicting sea ice distribution in the short term can help compa-
nies determine when a given shipping season is likely to begin and end. Long-term predictions
can help evaluate the need for ice-capable ships to extend the season or allow ships to traverse
lingering ice.
Long-term observations of the physical, biological, and social environment are essential for
identifying impacts from shipping, both from normal operations and from accidents such as fuel
spills. In a time of rapid environmental and social change, disentangling the effects of shipping
from other changes will require developing a detailed understanding of the workings of the
social-ecological system in the Bering Strait region, as well as the connections of this system to
the larger Arctic and global systems.
Shipping also brings the potential for technological innovation. Automated information
system units can be deployed on small hunting vessels, to alert large ships to the presence of
local hunters. Ships traveling in Arctic waters are also a platform of opportunity for collecting
observational data from regions that typically have limited or expensive scientific access.
Developing appropriate rules and recommendations for ships through the Bering Strait
depends on taking all of these factors into account, balancing economic opportunity, maritime
safety, and environmental and cultural protection. It will also require national actions by the
United States and Russia, bilateral collaboration, and likely action through the International Mari-
time Organization (IMO), responsible for shipping regulation outside national waters worldwide
(e.g., Robards, 2013). Whether attempts to establish appropriate regulatory measures lead to
conflict or cooperation remains to be seen.
82

Emerging Questions
within the Arctic based on common language and interests. For the most part, Arctic
regions have been the beneficiaries of government spending and subsidies. Fisheries
and, more recently, petroleum and mineral exploration have helped change that pat-
tern of dependence to some extent, and interests in development are increasing. Thus,
some parts of the Arctic may reach economic self-sufficiency, at least to some degree.
The appeal of Arctic resources, however, will also attract many more people, greater
outside influence, and the attention of more countries (e.g., the application of several
countries for observer status at the Arctic Council5).
A seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean will open new trade routes and facilitate access to
untapped oil and natural gas reserves (Gautier et al., 2009), repositioning the Arctic
from a post-Cold War periphery to a region central to national and international eco-
nomic interests (tland, 2009). Although Arctic states and Arctic residents anticipate
financial benefits from increased development of fossil fuels and minerals, shipping
routes, tourism opportunities, and fisheries, the region is also exposed to the ongoing
environmental and infrastructural risks associated with global climate and environ-
mental change, potential oil spills, and other hazards. Economic development can
bolster local adaptive capacity relative to climate change and climate mitigation poli-
cies by encouraging local investments, while at the same time encouraging stronger
links to the global society, along with an enhanced appreciation by outsiders of their
unique surroundings and relationships with nature. That said, many developments
also contribute to local vulnerability by contributing to global climatic changes.
Arctic communities are attempting to ensure their participation in policy processes
such as the Arctic Council (Sejersen, 2004). Arctic indigenous communities, many of
whom have corporate and constitutional rights, are part of consultative processes that
can delay proposed developments that threaten traditional land and resource use or
can shift the way benefits from economic development are distributed (see also Chap-
ter 3, Emerging Question E1). Different groups are not always cohesive and do not
necessarily share the same views, and hence anticipating how consultative processes
will shape decision making is never straightforward. At the same time, they have their
own perspectives on security and risk that often run counter to state-centric defini-
tions. Whereas states may emphasize the significance of energy security, for example,
indigenous communities may place more significance on food security (Hansen et al.,
2013).
The increase in resource exploration has also led to greater interest from, and presence
of, non-Arctic countries. China is working with Iceland and Greenland to help develop
5
See http://www.economist.com/news/international/21578040-arctic-council-admits-its-first-
permanent-asian-observers-warmer-welcome.
83

minerals. South Korea and Singapore are developing Arctic shipping capability with an
eye to the Northern Sea Route. These activities will influence international relations in
the Arctic Council and beyond (see Chapter 3, Emerging Question M2). They will also
affect Arctic communities, through the influx of new people, new cultures, new ideas,
and new problems as well as new opportunities. Modern telecommunications and
transport have also spurred the development of connections between Arctic peoples
and indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world, as they discover common experiences
of colonization and common challenges of maintaining cultures in the face of social
and environmental change. In short, even as east-west interactions remain challenging
in some ways, north-south connections to and from the Arctic are growing stronger
and more influential in both directions.
MANAGED ARCTIC
Emerging Questions for the Managed Arctic

M1. How will decreasing populations in rural villages and increasing urbanization affect
Arctic peoples and societies?
M2. Will local, regional, and international relations in the Arctic move toward cooperation
or conflict?
M3. How can 21st-century development in the Arctic occur without compromising the
environment or indigenous cultures while still benefiting global and Arctic inhabitants?
M4. How can we prepare forecasts and scenarios to meet emerging management needs?
M5. What benefits and risks are presented by geoengineering and other large-scale tech-
nological interventions to prevent or reduce climate change and associated impacts in the
Arctic?
The Arctic has been managed, to one degree or another, intentionally or otherwise,
since the first humans arrived in the region tens of thousands of years ago (e.g.,
Fitzhugh et al., 1988; Pavlov et al., 2001). Early hunters affected animal populations,
altered vegetation in and around their camps and settlements, and used the resources
they found to support themselves and to trade with their neighbors (e.g., Krupnik,
1993). Over time, humans spread throughout most of the Arctic (e.g., McGhee, 2007),
excepting only a few remote island groups. And they spread again, as new technolo-
gies supplanted old, as one group supplanted or blended with another, as people
found new ways to use resources and new resources to use.
84

Emerging Questions
The beginnings of the modern era followed the same pattern, with whalers and seal
hunters voyaging north (e.g., Bockstoce, 1986), with explorers seeking new lands and
new trading routes (e.g., Berton, 2000), and with inevitable clashes and blendings of
cultures and people (e.g., Slezkine, 1994). In the 19th and 20th centuries, the idea that
the Arctic has intrinsic value started to develop, leading in time to the recognition
of indigenous rights (e.g., Hensley, 2010) and a need to conserve Arctic places and
species (e.g., Nash, 2001). Nations claimed sovereignty over the lands of the Arctic,
and then over increasing areas of the sea, and now out to the extended continental
shelves. The commerce and colonization of the emerging Anthropocene brought
further technological advances and cultural change, as well as the introduction of dis-
ease and other detriments to health and well-being (Bockstoce, 1986). These patterns
continue today, as globalization reaches remote communities, as national and inter-
national policies affect traditional practices, and as interest in resource development
increases (e.g., GAO, 2003). Material well-being has advanced substantially throughout
the Arctic, life expectancy has increased, and much is now possible that never was
before.
At the same time, the impacts of climate and environmental change pose new chal-
lenges (e.g., ACIA, 2005; see Box 3.5). Permafrost degradation and coastal erosion
threaten the structures and viability of many communities (GAO, 2003). Changing
weather and ice conditions increase the hazards faced by those traveling on land and
sea (e.g., Pearce et al., 2011). Changes in vegetation and wildlife bring new opportuni-
ties (e.g., Noongwook et al., 2007) but also undermine established patterns of hunting,
fishing, and gathering (e.g., Gearheard et al., 2006). These changes occur within a wider
context of continuing economic, cultural, and political change. Many reindeer herd-
ers and small-scale fishermen find their livelihoods less and less able to support them
(e.g., Helander and Mustonen, 2004). Many indigenous languages are endangered and
some have disappeared (Barry et al., 2013). New modes of governance, through the
settlement of land claims or the evolution of political relationships with nation-states,
allow greater self-determination (AHDR, 2004), while the Arctic Council provides a new
way for nations to cooperate with each other and with indigenous peoples (Axworthy
et al., 2012).
All of these topics have been, and continue to be, studied in depth and in many places,
deepening our understanding of the ways people affect the Arctic environment and
the Arctic environment affects people, there and throughout the world. Indigenous
peoples are taking an ever-greater role in designing and carrying out research in their
areas. As noted in Chapter 2, this research has never been more important, as countries
and companies look north and as Arctic communities do more and more to shape
their own futures. Identifying ways to achieve sustainability for communities and
85

BOX 3.5 BALANCE OF SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT CONTROLS THE FLUX OF SEDIMENT
THROUGH RIVERS AND STREAMS
Sediment supply is controlled by both the delivery of material to channels from the sur-
rounding landscape and the rate of sediment exchange between the river and floodplains and
islands bordering the channel. The ability of rivers to transport delivered sediment depends on
the rate, timing, and magnitude of water carried by the channel. The river channel patterns and
mobility may dynamically adjust to changes in both sediment supply and river discharge. Ob-
served and predicted changes across Arctic watersheds will likely impact rivers and streams at
all levels. Changes in precipitation magnitudes and timing will alter river hydrographs, which will
in turn change the rate and timing of sediment transport. Increased erosion from hillslopes and
upland regions will increase the flux of sediment to river channels. If the increased flux of sedi-
ment exceeds the channel current transport capacity, then the channel form may respond. Com-
mon responses include shallowing and/or widening until the river slope increases sufficiently
to increase sediment transport to meet the new supply rates. Channel widening, in response to
increased sediment supply or to increases in bank erosion rates, will also cause flow to spread
out and the channel to become shallower. Bank erosion rates may be affected by watershed scale
changes in discharge and sediment supply and by local changes in channel flow patterns and
bank strength related to permafrost and/or vegetation.
Changes in channel form and mobility have the potential to significantly impact both stream
habitats and human infrastructure and transportation. Sedimentation and changes in channel
form can alter spawning habitats, water quality, and in-stream water temperatures. Widening
and shallowing of rivers can negatively affect river navigation, making channels impassable or
shifting flow away from long-established villages (see Figure). In other settings, changes in the
pattern and/or rate of bank and bed erosion may damage human infrastructure including vil-
lages, bridges, and pipeline crossings. The last barge to navigate the river to Noatak was in 1985.
It became stuck in the shallow river and remained trapped all summer. Since then, all their sup-
plies, including fuel and building materials, must be delivered by air freight.
86

Emerging Questions
BOX 3.5 CONTINUED
These images, taken on September 26, 2013 (top) and September 28, 2013 (bottom) show that the Noatak
River has become so filled in with sediments in the last few years that it is no longer possible to get a barge
into that river. This has significant ramifications for the village of Noatak. SOURCE: Sarah Betcher.
87

for economic development activities, finding successful adaptations to a changing

environment and the underpinnings of preparedness and resilience, and enhancing
food security and well-being are among the areas vital to the future of the Arctic, areas
where research can offer a great deal.
What are the impacts of climate and environmental change on Arctic commu-
nities and how can communities adapt effectively?
How can Arctic indigenous languages be sustained?
How can food security be improved in the Arctic?
How can the well-being of Arctic peoples be improved, for example, to reduce
suicide rates?
How do the distinctive features of Arctic climate change (long time horizon,
uncertainty, variable spatial scale, complexity of natural systems, interdepen-
dence of actors) shape human perception and response?
How will changing government policies, with regard to economic support and
resource use, affect the sustainability of Arctic communities?
In addition to these established research areas, several themes are emerging as the
Arctic and its societies change, as the impacts of climate change grow greater, and as
those with stakes in the Arctic become more numerous and widespread. We highlight
five such emerging areas of research, not as an exhaustive list of what can and should
be done but as examples of the ways in which research can and should adapt, in rec-
ognition of new trends and patterns in the way the Arctic is managed, locally, region-
ally, and globally.
How Will Decreasing Populations in Rural Villages and Increasing

Urbanization Affect Arctic Peoples and Societies?
A growing shift in Arctic populations is that indigenous people are moving into urban
settings (AHDR, 2004). Whether because their home communities are disappearing or
for economic reasons, those making such moves are facing major life decisions that
will affect generations to come. The people will have to adapt their ways of life, and at
the same time they will bring their values and culture with them into a new environ-
ment. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, Alaska Natives compose 14.8 percent of Alaskas
population, and over half of Alaska Natives live in Anchorage.6 Many questions remain
about how indigenous peoples are adapting to the urban setting (Voorhees, 2010).
6 See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html.
88

Emerging Questions
Will they sustain their cultural traditions, lose them in the urban melting pot, or create
new ways of living and being?
Such decisions will affect not just their social and economic well-being as indigenous
peoples but also their culture, place, and the larger society of which they are part. In-
digenous people such as the Yupik, Iupiat, and Inuit are synonymous with the Arctic,
yet major portions of their populations have already moved out of rural settings and
often out of the Arctic entirely. These moves bring a gamut of social and cultural chal-
lenges and issues, including many negative ones that attract the majority of attention.
Success stories, however, seem to happen with far less fanfare. How have these individ-
uals made the transition, and what have they kept with them in the way of language,
food, stories, dances, and other cultural practices? One obstacle is that discussions
of being indigenous in an urban setting appear to be taboo in many circles, with the
implication that one is less indigenous for living in a city.
The flip side of urbanization is the loss of small communities in the Arctic, from out-
migration or from loss of the physical site of the community. For centuries indig-
enous peoples living in the Arctic adapted readily to an ever-changing environment
(Krupnik, 1993). They built sod homes near resources, and if things changed they were
able to move easily, without regulations or restrictions. Today is a different story. The
homes, water and sewer, power grids, schools, runways, and roads of modern Arctic
communities have grown through time, and now they impede the ability to respond
to a changing landscape. When indigenous people in Alaska move to larger cities, they
may give up their hunting rights, such as with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It may be
legally difficult for people living in urban areas to return to their home village to hunt
migratory birds. Similarly, if someone moved to Fairbanks, he or she probably would
not be called a coastal native and thus probably could not hunt marine mammals.
Coastal communities threatened by erosion face difficult decisions regarding reloca-
tion. What happens when a community is no longer physically viable or is too expen-
sive to maintain (e.g., Huntington et al., 2012)?
The lack of opportunities, resources, and services in small communities, especially for
those who have left to pursue higher education or training, leads to outmigration,
the second major challenge for remote communities. Often, young women leave and
do not return, creating a gender imbalance (e.g., Hamilton, 2010). Today, many young
men are also leaving, resulting in a dearth of young people in most rural communities.
Although many move back as they grow older, many remain in cities. How will outmi-
gration affect rural communities, not just in terms of raw numbers but also the loss of
those with valuable skills and aspirations? What rights, to subsistence and to gover-
89

nance, do those who have left retain in their home communities, and how will these
be recognized and allocated?
A great deal of research effort has been focused on various aspects of these questions,
but a complete look at the various factors in migration, urbanization, and sustainability
of individuals, communities, and cultures has rarely been attempted. Yet these trends
will help define the indigenous experience through the 21st century, and thus deserve
careful study and open discussion that can help indigenous peoples chart their own
futures in a rapidly changing social and natural world.
Will Local, Regional, and International Relations in the

Arctic Move toward Cooperation or Conflict?
During the Cold War, the Iron Curtain extended through the middle of the Bering
Strait and also along the Norwegian-Soviet border, separating nations and also in-
digenous peoples from their relatives and areas of travel and use. The demise of the
Soviet Union and the creation of the Arctic Council have helped promote communi-
cation and cooperation, and Norway and Russia recently resolved a disputed mari-
time boundary in the Barents Sea. But claims to extended continental shelves, access
through the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage, and divergent policies
for wildlife management or resource development offer many sources of potential
conflict. Growing interest in the Arctic by non-Arctic countries raises the stakes higher
with greater uncertainty (e.g., Wall, 2013). Locally and regionally, similar divergent
paths can be seen, for example, between local governments and large corporations as
to the conditions under which industrial activity will take place. A recent election in
Greenland hinged on the way the Self-Rule Government should approach mining and
oil development.
Throughout human history, mankind has raced to discover the next frontier. And time after time,
discovery was swiftly followed by conflict. We cannot erase this history. But we can assure that
history does not repeat itself in the Arctic.
Chuck Hagel, U.S. Secretary of Defense, November 2013, regarding his departments newly
released Arctic Strategy.
This question of cooperation or conflict leads to additional lines of inquiry, about the
role of indigenous peoples within nations and internationally, for example, through
the Arctic Council and the United Nations; about the respective ambitions and policies
of Arctic and non-Arctic countries; about the distribution of risks and rewards from
resource development; and more. The aspirations of Arctic peoples to achieve greater
90

Emerging Questions
self-determination are particularly noteworthy (see Chapter 3, Emerging Question

E1), with different approaches being taken in various regions, and work being done
toward a common voice through organizations such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council
and the Saami Council.
As exploration, economic development, and political assertion increase, the poten-
tial for conflicting pathways increases, but so do many incentives for cooperation.
Rules for Arctic shipping are under discussion as the IMO develops its Polar Code, and
regional arrangements are also under development. Various scenarios for the future of
international relations in the Arctic have been proposed, but these remain speculation
at present (e.g., Arctic Council, 2009). Local patterns may differ from national ones, as,
for example, the United States and Russia cooperate on marine safety and related is-
sues in the Bering Strait area even as Washington and Moscow spar over larger geopo-
litical differences. Canada and Russia are pursuing extended continental shelf claims in
the Arctic Ocean.
Non-Arctic countries take a greater interest in Arctic affairs, raising concerns over
their level of influence. For example, China is pursuing development opportunities
in Greenland and Iceland, and South Korea is building ice-capable ships. They both
seek engagement in the Arctic Council and other forums for joining forces with Arctic
countries. The Arctic Council, in turn, has shown greater willingness to extend observer
status to non-Arctic countries, although so far not to the European Union as its own
entity.
The newly formed Arctic Circle, a group established to facilitate dialogue between
businesses and Arctic governments and organizations, is attempting to establish itself
as a business-friendly alternative to the Arctic Council. Many corporations are produc-
ing or exploring for natural resources such as oil, gas, lead, zinc, gold, and diamonds,
providing employment opportunities and tax revenues as well as potential impacts on
the environment and local communities.
Indigenous communities collaborate with one another to a greater degree than ever
before, including working beyond the Arctic directly and through international work-
ing groups and forums for indigenous rights, though there are often differences be-
tween and within communities over whether and how resource development should
take place.
Research has been done in all these areas, enhancing our understanding of the
relationships among the various entities as well as the factors that influence those
relationships. It is important that such research continue, from simply tracking the
activities of the Arctic Council, to documenting the ways that indigenous communities
91

interact with and learn from another; from evaluating the effectiveness of community
consultations by industry or governments, to exploring the potential role of indig-
enous communities in exploration and development activities.
Little is known, however, about the trajectories of these forms of interaction and
how cooperation or conflict in one region or sector will affect cooperation or conflict
elsewhere. These trajectories and their interactions will determine the overall course
of human relations in the Arctic in the decades to come. A better understanding of
their direction may allow intervention to reduce conflict or enable better planning for
infrastructure, policies, governance, and other human arrangements that are likely to
operate for decades, well into an uncertain future.
How Can 21st-Century Development in the Arctic Occur Without

Compromising the Environment or Indigenous Cultures
While Still Benefiting Global and Arctic Inhabitants?
Whether spurred by new opportunities for access, by global economic factors (such as
energy supply and cost), or by the aspirations of local populations, increasing explora-
tion and development in the Arctic will bring both opportunity and risk (e.g., Gautier
et al., 2009; see Box 3.6). In recent remarks to the inaugural Arctic Circle forum, Scott
Minerd, Global Chief Investment Officer, Guggenheim Partners, likened the physical
and economic opening of the Arctic to the discovery of the Americas. He highlighted
the potential for economic benefits as well as the potential for environmental deg-
radation and for detrimental impacts on indigenous people. In the United States, for
example, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act specifically mandates expeditious and
orderly development, subject to environmental safeguards. Billions of barrels of oil
are expected to be found (e.g., Gautier et al., 2009), but operating in remote regions
is hazardous. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, Arctic nations have the potential to
extend territorial claims (Exclusive Economic Zones; see Figure 3.15) to the seabed of
extended continental shelves. This potential has fostered a rapid exploration of the
geology of the continental-basin margin, a clear indication of interest in capitalizing
on resource development opportunities in these areas.
The effort to bring about sustainable exploration and development will require an en-
hanced understanding of Arctic physical, ecological, social, political, and economic sys-
tems. The management of these Arctic systems will be accomplished through a matrix
of local and national regulatory frameworks, international agreements and standards,
and private sector technical operating standards that either currently exist or are to be
developed (e.g., Holland-Bartels and Pierce, 2011). A common theme of these manage-
92

Emerging Questions
ment structures is that successful implementation is contingent upon the strength of

the science upon which decisions and requirements are based.
Basing policies and practices on science then raises a debate as to the adequacy of in-
formation available to support certain development decisions. Conversely, it also raises
a debate as to the adequacy and capability of policy frameworks to respond to the
available information to support development decisions. A great deal has been done
to obtain scientific knowledge about the various components of the Arctic system. As
the utilization of the Arctic by indigenous peoples has formed a strong base of tradi-
tional knowledge, repeated waves of Arctic development, including commercial whal-
ing in the 1800s, militarization in the mid to late 1900s, and oil and gas exploration of
the late 1900s to early 2000s, have each driven associated expansion of research and
knowledge of the Arctic (see Table 3.2). This research has helped industry to design
operations for safety and environmental protection, government agencies to develop
appropriate regulations to meet national expectations for careful practices, and Arctic
communities to enhance self-determination and to determine how to harness eco-
nomic development for lasting benefit.
At the same time, there is much yet to be learned about the Arctic in relation to
economic development. The functioning of Arctic ecosystem and social-ecological
systems lags behind our understanding of the components of those systems (Holland-
Bartels and Pierce, 2011), limiting our ability to project how further changes will affect
people and the environment. Resource development in the Arctic is occurring in a
context of rapid and large-scale environmental (ABA, 2013; ACIA, 2005) and social
change (AHDR, 2004), and assessing the extent, rate, and trajectories of such changes
is essential to being able to evaluate how locally driven changes interact with glob-
ally driven ones. Increasing understanding of the cumulative impacts from resource
development, including subtle impacts and those that increase over time, needs to be
matched by a better understanding of the options for avoiding or mitigating those im-
pacts. Finally, the use of scientific knowledge to achieve effective governance needs to
be examined, to determine how science can best support sound decisions in recogni-
tion both of what we know and of what we do not know.
A number of key issues that may be related to development of the Arctic deserve
specific mention. Whether it is related to increased shipping, increased size and devel-
opment of communities, or oil and gas development, the potential for oil and other
hazardous material spills is increasing in the Arctic. Oil-spill-related research ranges
from the technical engineering side of strengthening prevention and intervention and
the design of effective recovery technologies, to understanding the potential interplay
between oil and Arctic biological resources and ecosystems and potential mitigation
93

BOX 3.6 UNDERSTANDING ADAPTIVE CAPACITY IN TUKTOYAKTUK, CANADA

Our traditional activities are not as common as they used to be, and what our
grandparents used to do on a regular basis each year has died. A lot of us dont
even know half the stuff they used to do to survive.
Tina Steen, Tuktoyaktuk
resident (quoted in Andrachuk and Smit, 2012)
Tuktoyaktuk (Tuktuyaaqtuuq) is a community of almost 1,000 people located on the shore of

the Beaufort Sea in the Northwest Territories, Canada, part of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.
The area has experienced 2 to 3 oC of warming over the last 50 years (Furgal and Prowse, 2008),
along with more frequent and intense storms, permafrost degradation, and sea ice retreat (Small
80 N 120W
USA 80 N
CANADA
USA
Beaufort Sea
Inuvialuit
Settlement Region
Alaska
Sachs Harbour
Tuktoyaktuk
Inuvik
Aklavik
140W Ulukhaktok
AR Paulatuk
CT
IC
Yukon CI
RC
LE
Northwest Territories
0 100 km 110W
120W Nunavut
The Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Tuktoyaktuk. SOURCE: Pearce et al. (2011).
and restoration measures. A carefully developed suite of research initiatives is needed

to address each of these oil-spill-related topics from prevention to restoration. The
NRC Committee on Responding to Oil Spills in Arctic Marine Environments recently cov-
ered this topic in much greater detail (NRC, 2014b).
The introduction of increased vessel traffic and industrial activities has the potential
to produce sound-related impacts in an area that has heretofore been largely iso-
lated from the general increase of sound in the worlds oceans. The relative increase
94

Emerging Questions
BOX 3.6 CONTINUED

et al., 2011). A major discovery of shale oil was made in the Northwest Territories in 2013, with
implications for expansion of the deepwater port in Tuktoyaktuk. Other new developments
include construction of a highway to the town and emergence of plans for new Beaufort Sea
oil drilling platforms.
As a result of these environmental, social, and economic transformations, the community
is experiencing a confluence of impacts ranging from accelerating coastal erosion (Galley et al.,
2012) to cultural sustainability issues (Pokiak, 2012). Understanding the challenges presented
by this evolving context requires a diversity of methods across the natural and social sciences
(Cohen, 1997). For example, the harvesting of geese is more than a subsistence activity for the
people of Tuktoyaktuk; it is an essential part of the process of renewal in the spring, embodying
the spiritual connection between people and land. To that end, reaching an understanding of
wildlife management implications of the rapid changes affecting the community is a research
activity that requires collaboration between ecologists and climate scientists, regional govern-
ment representatives, and the community-based Inuvialuit Game Council and local hunters and
trappers committee (Bromley, 1996; Hines and Brook, 2008).
Authors such as Brunner and Lynch (2010) and Andrachuk and Smit (2012) elaborate on
the range of collaborative efforts that will support more robust responses to complex and rapid
changes in the Arctic system. Depending on the geographic and social context, studies range
from knowledge-based approaches that engage with traditional epistemologies; to institutional
approaches to understand how actors mobilize to further social, economic, or political agendas;
to approaches that seek to build local capacity in explicit ways (Fischer, 2003). The most effective
approaches, however, share a foundation in rigorous basic natural and social sciences.
of sound levels above baseline and the implications to marine species and the use of
these resources by subsistence communities is a key question of concern.
How Can We Prepare Forecasts and Scenarios to

Meet Emerging Management Needs?
The Arctic environmentincluding its weather, snow conditions, and ice conditions
is changing rapidly. In addition, the scope and scale of human activity in the region
95

FIGURE 3.15 Exclusive Economic Zones in the Arctic Ocean.
96

Emerging Questions
TABLE 3.2 Historical Timeline Depicting the Evolution of U.S. Arctic Research Programs
(Westlien, 2010).
1893 Arctic Drift Stations
1947 Arctic Research Laboratory
1959 Project Chariot Environmental Studies
1970 Western Beaufort Sea Ecological Cruises
1971 Arctic Ice Dynamics Joint Experiment
1975 Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program
1979 Marine Mammal Monitoring
1980 Oil Industry Science
1997 Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic
1998 Shelf Basin Interactions Project
2004 RussianAmerican Long-Term Census of the Arctic
2005 Government and Industry Science
are increasing. The result is that past experiences are not as reliable in predicting the
future as they once were, at a time with an ever greater need for forecasts and sce-
narios from daily to decadal time frames. Development of both physical and economic
forecasts and scenarios in collaboration with those who will use them can help meet
the needs of those living and working in the Arctic. For example, improved forecast-
ing capabilities can help save lives in rural communities. Many coastal communities
in Alaska are dealing with changing weather patterns, and this has already impacted
their ability to harvest traditional foods for themselves. Communities and their mem-
bers have to take more risks in trying to provide food7 due to unpredictable weather,
abnormal sea ice conditions, and animals shifting migration routes. Knowing the
weather patterns is critical in this case for a communitys survival.
Specific forecast and scenario needs, including time frame and region, will vary by
user. For example, hunters and fishers may want reliable daily to 3-day wind and vis-
ibility forecasts, whereas vessel captains or offshore oil rig managers may need ocean,
weather, and ice forecasting over a 3-to-10-day time frame so that they can reroute a
vessel or shut down an oil rig and evacuate the crew. Seasonal to annual forecasts are
increasingly important for longer-term planning of logistics and personnel, and par-
7 See http://aksik.org/village/savoonga.
97

ticularly important for staging of wildfire crews and supplies. As operations push into
the shoulder seasons, forecasts are especially critical because the phase change from
liquid to solid, and vice versa, impacts the viability of tundra travel and oil exploration,
ice roads, ice platforms, shipping lanes, and more. In addition to projections of the
natural Arctic system, longer-term community planning requires decadal projections
and scenarios of key social indicators. Because of the implications for sea level rise and
teleconnections to Northern Hemisphere weather, Arctic scenarios spanning 20, 50,
and 100 years are of global interest to a wide range of users.
As the Arctic transitions toward less snow and ice, conditions are becoming more
variable and harder to predict (Krupnik and Jolly, 2002). The improvement of opera-
tional weather forecasting will rely on an enhancement of the automated weather
observation network, addition of Doppler radar (NEXRAD) stations, and improvements
in forecast models. Training for weather forecasters needs to include Arctic phenom-
ena. Open pack ice moves more quickly than consolidated sea ice, and there are shifts
in the direction of ice movement as well (Pfirman et al., 2010a,b). Increased calving
of marine glaciers produces increased iceberg hazards: 22 percent of the GrIS drains
through marine-terminating glaciers (Nick et al., 2009). More traffic, and traffic in new
regions, places more people and infrastructure at risk.
Better observations and models are also important to improve predictability for spe-
cific locations for explicit forecast lead times and seasons. Location-specific forecasts
of sea ice distribution, thickness, and/or age are essential. Improving forecast skill will
require a coordinated network of upper air, land, and ocean surface measurements, as
well as model inter-comparison and sensitivity studies. Beyond the atmosphere and
ice, forecasts for the ocean, permafrost, hydrology, and ecosystems, as well as warn-
ings for storm surges and other hazards and extreme events (See Chapter 3, Emerg-
ing Question E4) are essential. Also needed are integrated ensemble forecast systems
designed specifically for application to the Arctic, with high-resolution products that
can be used for risk management and other decision making.
Turning to longer time frames, consideration of scenarios for the next 20, 50, and 100
years allows exploration of causes and effects. The IPCC (2013) and AMSA (Arctic Coun-
cil, 2009) assessments have shown the value of scenario development in assessing
trade-offs between proactive versus reactive choices and responses. Scenarios for the
next 20 years may focus on potential resource development, and conflict/cooperation
issues (see Chapter 3, Emerging Question M3). Industries and land/resource manage-
ment agencies that need a 50- to 100-year planning horizon would need to address a
new Arctic normal of changed plant and animal species, a mostly open Arctic Ocean,
and changed Northern Hemisphere circulation patterns. Additionally, scenario analy-
98

Emerging Questions
ses will permit the consideration that the global community may act to address the
causes of the current warming and recovery/restoration may be an emerging issue
(see Chapter 3, Emerging Question M2). Just as with the shorter-term forecasts, differ-
ent stakeholders with diverse perspectives will have a range of needs over the next
century, and new unknowns will emerge from this analysis.
Forecasting and scenario development present opportunities for exploring public-
private partnerships and for international cooperation. Currently, Arctic forecasting is
occurring largely within the United States, Canada, Russia, and the European Union,
with many inconsistencies in data-sharing protocols, data and forecast formatting, and
forecast and warning language. Collaboration could provide mutual benefits to ad-
vance the field in general, while providing more valuable products to users through-
out the world. Key research topics in this area include probing the limits of forecasting
ability and connecting user needs with specific forecast products.
What Benefits and Risks Are Presented by Geoengineering and

Other Large-Scale Technological Interventions to Prevent or Reduce
Climate Change and Associated Impacts in the Arctic?
With the Arctic headed for long-term declines in glacier and sea ice, some have pro-
posed turning toward geoengineering activities that would reduce ice loss or poten-
tially even allow ice to be restored (MacCracken et al., 2013). Indeed, the Arctic may
even be the impetus that sparks a global discussion of geoengineering. An emerging
aspect of geoengineering is whether there are any strategies that could be applied to
the Arctic alone. Further research would help us understand the implications of geo-
engineering in the Arctic.
Historically, two categories of activities have been discussed as geoengineering
approaches (Figure 3.16): (1) carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques that aim to
enhance the escape of longwave (thermal infrared) radiation and (2) albedo modifica-
tion (commonly referred to in the literature as solar radiation management [SRM]) that
seeks to counter indirectly the heating effects of anthropogenic climate change by
deflecting shortwave (solar) radiation from entering the Earth system (Boucher and
Randall, 2013; NRC, 2010). This second category is considered indirect because it does
not seek to address the primary cause of anthropogenic climate changeincreasing
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphereand thus does not address the
biogeochemical effects of that carbon dioxide, such as ocean acidification.
Geoengineering has the potential for delivering both large societal benefits and
significant natural and societal risks. Some CDR methods are well established and have
99

FIGURE 3.16 Summary of various carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management geoengineer-
ing approaches. SOURCE: IPCC (2013), FAQ 7.3, Figure 1.
been commercialized on a small scale, such as afforestation and biofuel approaches.

However, only limited research has been conducted to assess the technical feasibility
and ecological impacts of many of the potential approaches in either category, partic-
ularly those that act on shorter timescales or larger spatial scales. Further, approaches
that address regional problems, such as seeding clouds with sea salt to increase their
brightness over Arctic ice (e.g., Caldeira and Wood, 2008; Wood and Ackerman, 2013),
face limitations in our ability to understand and model key phenomena (Fyfe et al.,
2013). Also, Tilmes et al. (2014) conclude that regional dimming has challenges in
preserving sea ice under global warming, because the impact is largely counteracted
by increasing northward heat transport as well as changes in Arctic clouds. Research
that improves our understanding of the phenomena and interactions in this complex
system, in the context of natural variability and a variety of forcings, is a critical compo-
100

Emerging Questions
nent of our ability to address key gaps in our understanding of the benefits and risks
of geoengineering approaches.
A landmark study by the Royal Society of the United Kingdom made the recommen-
dation to develop a code of practice for geoengineering research (Gardiner, 2011;
Royal Society, 2009). A key contribution to the governance of research (including field
testing), development, and any eventual deployment of geoengineering technologies
was the Oxford Principles (Rayner et al., 2013). These principles state, in short, that
geoengineering is a public good, which implies that public participation, open publi-
cation, and independent assessment are key elements of appropriate governance.
The NRC Committee on Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion
of Impacts is currently conducting a technical evaluation of selected geoengineering
techniques. This committee will be examining feasibility and potential environmen-
tal, economic, and national security impacts, as well as identifying future research
needs. The committee will briefly explore societal and ethical considerations related
to geoengineering. In this context, Arctic research would be useful in three areas of
knowledge gaps in geoengineering approaches: (1) understanding of Arctic climate
systems, particularly in the areas of cloudradiation interactions, biogeochemistry,
and Arctic teleconnections; (2) Arctic social, environmental, and economic studies that
address technological effectiveness in the context of both actual and perceived risks
to Arctic natural systems and peoples; and (3) the pragmatic implementation of ethics
and governance principles under which research is conducted.
UNDETERMINED ARCTIC
Other important elements of the Arctic system remain hidden, not because they are
physically inaccessible but because of our incomplete understanding of the system.
These are the intriguing things we dont know we dont know.
Providing openings for to be determined questions is often implied in strategic as-
sessments, acknowledging our inability to predict the future. Given the rapid pace of
change in the Arctic, and the surprises encountered thus far, it is appropriate in this
report to treat this category explicitly. As noted in Chapter 2, the only ways to prepare
for what we do not know are to understand the system as best we can and to be posi-
tioned to detect and prepare to respond to changes and events.
This set of uncertainties requires at the same time that (1) we invest in the most
fundamental and basic research, including exploration as well as hypothesis-driven
research; comparison of models with observations; cross-scale experiments; research
101

at the interfaces of disciplines; understanding feedbacks and nonlinearities; investiga-

tion of outliers and extremes in the paleoclimate record; and creative, non-traditional
approaches; (2) we invest in comprehensive monitoring systems; and (3) international
funding, logistics, and governance frameworks are flexible enough to deploy resources
on rapid timescales and appropriate locations. A research question in and of itself is
how governments will structure their responses to the abrupt transitions, changes,
and surprises that are sure to come in the future. These three elements are also ques-
tions related to the things we know we know and the things we know we dont know.
The committee was tasked with exploring how agency decision makers might bal-
ance their research programs and associated investments (e.g., balancing work done
to respond to urgent global change concerns versus work to advance fundamental
knowledge and discovery). In other words, what are some of the challenges of trying
to do both problem-driven research and curiosity-driven research? We do not see
fundamental knowledge and discovery as a trade-off versus urgent global change
research but, rather, as an investment in better preparing us for what the next urgent
issue might be.
Similarly, although many view monitoring and long-term observations as a technical
issue or something that can be cobbled together, the committee sees it as worth high-
profile and comprehensive investment: monitoring and long-term observations are at
the frontline of detecting the next big thing (Figure 3.17). As one example, the satellite
record has been essential to the Arctic community because it provides a circumpolar
perspective and a clear record of change, even over the short duration of the satellite
era. Without investment in satellites, their sensors, and the technical and scientific ca-
pacity to make use of the resulting data, our understanding of the Arctic would be far
poorer. The committees Statement of Task (see Box 1.1) requested that attention be
given to assessing needs where there may be a mismatch between rates of change
and the pace of scientific research. It is only by maintaining long-term observations
that we have an ongoing way to know where to deploy resources on short notice, so
that we can implement our research programs with this years situation in hand, not
dependent on information from the last time a field program may have been in the
area, which could have been as much as a decade ago.
Because much of the Arctic has been difficult to access, research has tended in the
past to focus on the regions surrounding logistics hubs, with the result that scientific
findings are concentrated in these areas. Logistics coordination and sharing can help
overcome this obstacle. For example, the Fleet Arctic Operation Game report (Gray et
al., 2011) analysis concluded, In order to mitigate these challenges in the short term,
the United States Navy should leverage DOD, industry and multinational logistics hubs
102

Emerging Questions
FIGURE 3.17 North Pole webcam image. SOURCE: NOAA.
and platforms. In the long term, the development of permanent infrastructure at the
mid-point of a NWP transit capable of providing fuel to maritime assets was recom-
mended. (P. 18)
Creative new ways to crowd-source Arctic monitoring also need support,8 along the
model of Google working with the Centers for Disease Control to collect information
on the locations of people conducting online searches for flu symptoms, to give hos-
pitals warnings for where the next flu outbreak is likely to be.9 For example, working
with commercial interests, ground truthing data for satellite observations of sea ice
conditions in marginal ice zones could be tracked with cruise ships and other ships of
opportunity.
Ultimately, the ability to address questions that are as yet unknown will depend on
a responsive community, from those identifying priority topics, to those conducting
research, to those making funding decisions, to those setting research policies and
investing in infrastructure. Trendy new ideas do not diminish the importance of crucial,
8 See http://www.nature.com/news/crowdsourcing-may-open-up-ocean-science-1.13341.
9 See http://www.google.org/flutrends/us/#US.
103

established research needs. But neither should past practices limit the exploration of
what is new or blind us to the possibility of surprise. This chapter presents many com-
pelling and emerging research questions, but it cannot claim to provide a complete
guide for new research areas for the next decade or two. Instead, it is a vivid demon-
stration of how much remains to be learned and of how often we need to look at the
Arctic in a new way.
PRIORITY SETTING
Assigning priorities among the emerging research questions identified in this report
inevitably involves a degree of subjectivity. Agencies have specific missions, which
will align differently with the questions depending on their particular responsibilities.
Depending on ones location in the Arctic, priorities may differ according to specific lo-
cal economic, environmental, cultural, political, and other conditions. Furthermore, the
committee is unwilling to suggest that any of the emerging questions in this report is
low priority, as all have come from extensive input from the research community and
lengthy committee discussion. Addressing each question offers the promise of useful
information or significant advances in knowledge. The committee was tasked not to
provide a literal ranking of research priorities but to provide some scale by which re-
cipients of the report can better judge importance or time-relevance among the iden-
tified questions. The committee therefore cannot assign priorities with confidence
or rigor, and it instead suggests that such work be undertaken as part of a discussion
among agency personnel, researchers, and (where appropriate) policy makers and
other stakeholders.
The committee was also asked to [e]xplore how agency decision makers might bal-
ance their research programs and associated investments (e.g., balancing work done
to respond to urgent global change concerns versus work to advance fundamental
knowledge and discovery). In other words, what are some of the challenges of trying
to do both problem-driven research and curiosity-driven research? Curiosity-driven
research and problem-oriented research are often considered to be competing and
even mutually exclusive approaches. This dichotomy is more a reflection of agency
funding priorities and mechanisms than a fundamental property of the research en-
terprise itself.
In practice, our understanding of the Arctic benefits from both approaches, and the
ability to act on Arctic matters requires insights from all points on the research spec-
trum. To demonstrate this, we plotted the emerging questions along time and basic
versus applied axes (Figure 3.18a). The time-relevance axis (x-axis) is the degree to
104

Emerging Questions
which answers to each question could guide decisions being made now versus those
likely to be made later. The other axis (y-axis) is the degree to which the answers will
improve our basic understanding of the Arctic versus those that will have direct appli-
cation to decisions and actions. The result is a fairly even distribution along both time
and applications spectra, with questions largely falling along a line from direct ap-
plication, short-term to basic understanding, long-term. This no doubt stems largely
from the fact that we know what todays pressing issues are, so we can ask pertinent
questions to address short-term needs. For the longer term, it is easier to identify key
areas of basic understanding that we expect will be relevant to tomorrows pressing
issues.
Because this dichotomy between research on fundamental questions versus that on
specific, urgent problems is misleading, we should not seek to identify an optimal
balance. Nor are short-term questions necessarily more pressing than long-term ones,
as addressing long-term needs often requires long-term action. It is more productive
to think about the ways in which decision makers and communities can draw on the
results of all types of research to find appropriate paths for action, and the innovative
research that emerges when researchers direct their inquiry toward what decision
makers need to know. Both approaches are necessary, and their respective importance
is likely to vary by agency.
Similarly, the Arctic in the Anthropocene requires both natural and social scientific
study in order to understand the phenomena and processes that define and shape it,
as well as the sustainability science called for in the Statement of Task, which informs
the decisions that lie ahead. Plotting the emerging questions along time-relevance (x-
axis) and natural versus social science emphasis (y-axis) again reveals a relatively even
spectrum in both directions (Figure 3.18b). Many short and medium term questions
have a social science component, in part because of the rate of change and in part
because investments have not been made in the social sciences to the same degree as
the natural sciences. Social science research, including economic, cultural, and behav-
ioral analysis, is clearly needed to provide lines of evidence for making decisions at
individual and organizational levels about preparedness and how to live and work in
the Arctic. Using the best available information can help improve wellbeing now and
enhance our resilience to future shocks.
The emerging questions can also be arranged by spatial scale (y-axis) to highlight geo-
graphic scope (Figure 3.18c). As the section on the Connected Arctic demonstrated,
what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. The reverse is also true. The
Arctic is interconnected with global social and economic systems as well as through
atmospheric and oceanic transfers and terrestrial migration patterns. And within the
105

a.
b.
FIGURE 3.18 The emerging research questions are plotted with time relevance on the x-axis and (a)
potential for contribution to basic knowledge versus direct application; (b) natural versus social science
emphasis; and (c) local versus regional versus global geographic scope on the y-axis.
E1: Community futures. Will Arctic communities have greater or lesser influence on their futures?
E2: Wetter or drier. Will the land be wetter or drier, and what are the associated implications for surface water,
energy balances, and ecosystems?
E3: Ocean variability. How much of the variability of the Arctic system is linked to ocean circulation?
E4: Arctic extremes. What are the impacts of extreme events in the new ice-reduced system?
E5: Primary productivity. How will primary productivity change with decreasing sea ice and snow cover?
E6: Species distribution. How will species distributions and associated ecosystem structure change with the
106

Emerging Questions
c.
H1: Icy surprises. What surprises are hidden within and beneath the ice?
H2: What is lost. What is being irretrievably lost as the Arctic changes?
H3: Winter. Why does winter matter?
H4: Break or brake. What can break or brake glaciers and ice sheets?
H5: Unusual warmth. How unusual is the current Arctic warmth?
H6: Abrupt change. What is the role of the Arctic in abrupt change?
H7: Cenozoic. What has been the Cenozoic evolution of the Arctic Ocean Basin?
C1: Jet stream. How will rapid Arctic warming change the jet stream and affect weather patterns in lower
latitudes?
C2: Irreversible ice loss. What is the potential for a trajectory of irreversible loss of Arctic land ice, and how will
its impact vary regionally?
C3: Ocean exchange. How will climate change affect exchanges between the Arctic Ocean and subpolar
basins?
C4: Biota transport. How will Arctic change affect the long-range transport and persistence of biota?
C5: Social connections. How will changing societal connections between the Arctic and the rest of the world
M1: Urbanization. How will decreasing populations in rural villages and increasing urbanization affect Arctic
peoples and societies?
M2: Cooperation/Conflict. Will local, regional, and international relations in the Arctic move toward coopera-
tion or conflict?
M3: 21st-century development. How can 21st- century development in the Arctic occur without compromis-
ing the environment or indigenous cultures while still benefiting global and Arctic inhabitants?
M4: Forecasts. How can we prepare forecasts and scenarios to meet emerging management needs?
M5: Geoengineering. What benefits and risks are presented by geoengineering and other large-scale techno-
logical interventions to prevent or reduce climate change and associated impacts in the Arctic?
107

Arctic, conditions are not uniform, both in terms of natural and social settings and
also with respect to vulnerability to change. As highlighted in the first finding of the
Polar Regions chapter of the 2014 IPCC report on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulner-
ability, The impacts of climate change, and the adaptations to it, exhibit strong spatial
heterogeneity in the Polar Regions because of the high diversity of social systems, bio-
physical regions and associated drivers of change (IPCC, 2014, p.2). Therefore priorities
vary by location, discipline, and stakeholder representation.
A failure to address emerging questions in a timely fashion and with an appropri-
ate suite of expertise may undermine our ability to mitigate and adapt to change by
increasing the risk of:
(1) making decisions based on faulty and/or outdated information (especially for
those questions that have direct applications in the short term; Figure 3.18a),
(2) pursuing inadequate understanding of important phenomena (especially for
questions in the middle areas of Figure 3.18), and
(3) laying an insufficient foundation for future research (especially for questions
that lead to new basic understanding over the long term; Figure 3.18c).
Remaining open to questions and surprises that will emerge in the future enables
crucial new insights to the way the Arctic physical, biological, and social systems work,
enhancing societys ability to attain the most benefit from Arctic research.
108


Southeast coastline of Greenland between 62.5 and 65.5 degrees north. Photo credit: Perry Spector

CHAPTER FOUR
Meeting the Challenges
S
tudying emerging questions will require a combination of new and traditional
approaches and tools. The questions require information at spatial scales ranging
from meters for process studies to pan-Arctic and beyond to link high-latitude
change to large-scale systems throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Understanding
interactions among changing oceans, terrestrial systems, hydrologic processes, atmo-
spheric dynamics, and social and economic systems will necessitate a broad suite of
measurements and observations, obtained at regular time intervals and consistently
over decades.
As detailed in this chapter, standard techniques that work in other regions often have
deficiencies when applied to the Arctic. For example, remotely sensed data suffer from
a lack of appropriate validation data and a need for calibration to Arctic conditions.
Social indicators often lack specific relevance to the Arctic. Long-term observations,
networks of field-based measurements, and remote sensing techniques are needed
to understand and quantify the effects of a changing climate and also to inform and
validate modeling efforts. Chronic shortages of appropriate data make it difficult to
develop model parameters and to validate model results.
The sections of this chapter describe in more detail various ways research capability
can be increased to help address the existing and emerging questions. Many of these
improvements will require long-term planning, and all stem from the fundamentally
collaborative nature of Arctic research. In keeping with the committees Statement of
Task, we do not suggest specific actions to be taken but instead raise key topics for
consideration by funding agencies and others as they consider how best to address
the questions discussed in Chapter 3, as well as how best to continue and improve the
strong record of Arctic research described in Chapter 2.
ENHANCING COOPERATION
Effective Arctic research is international and national, interdisciplinary and disciplinary,

applied and basic, private and public. Cooperation between and among many indi-
viduals, institutions, businesses, agencies, and countries will help to maximize invest-
ments in research, synthesis, outreach, and infrastructure (Box 4.1).
111

BOX 4.1 THE CASE FOR ENHANCED COOPERATION
Reflecting its growing awareness of the Arctic as a security concern, the Department of
Defense recently highlighted the need for cooperation in the Arctic. The 2011 Fleet Arctic Opera-
tions Game Report notes, As risk increased due to extreme climatic conditions and increased
operating and support distances, there was a corresponding increase in the need for specialized
information and capabilities. As this trend increased, the required information and capabilities
became less available in the U.S. Navy and planners were forced to look elsewhere for the ca-
pabilities needed to execute their mission tasking. At the low end of the scale, these could be
found inside DoD [Department of Defense], but eventually planners needed to rely on industry,
international partners, or the whole of U.S. government. This further reiterates that sustainability
in Arctic operations is significantly dependent on strong relationships with international, regional
and local partners in government and industry. Mechanisms that strengthen these ties should
be prioritized in future planning (Gray et al., 2011).
This figure illustrates that reliability and sustainability are linked to specialized information and capabilities
that are currently enabled by strong relationships. SOURCE: Gray et al. (2011).
112

Interagency
Since the Arctic Research Policy Act of 1984, an interagency Arctic Research Plan has
been developed every 5 years. The Arctic Research Plan for FY2013-2017, released
in February 2013, outlines interagency federal initiatives to better understand and
predict Arctic environmental change. Following up on this plan was the first ever U.S.
National Strategy for the Arctic Region, released in May 2013, calling for each agency
to develop a coordinated strategy or implementation plan.
This alignment of effort within and between U.S. agencies, coordinated by IARPC,
could have significant implications for the future of Arctic research if there is a con-
comitant investment in cross-agency sharing of research and infrastructure. The
ongoing Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) program and the Arctic
Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) competition run by NSF
with cooperation from numerous other agencies are examples of what can be done
when agencies decide to co-fund initiatives. Nonetheless, there is still a need for com-
mitments to make the most of opportunities for joint studies across agencies. This is
especially important when the missions of different agencies result in complementary
work, for example, in synthesizing findings from different research projects so those
findings can be applied to meet the needs of various stakeholders. Some synthesis ac-
tivities have taken place or are under way, but they are often ad hoc efforts made after
the majority of research is done.
Cooperation across levels of government is as important as interagency cooperation.
It does exist in some forms, such as the North Slope Science Initiative in Alaska, which
involves the federal government, state government, and local (North Slope Borough)
government and aims to increase collaboration on monitoring, inventory, and research
related to development activities. More can be done, however, to coordinate data
collection, share costs, and develop a common basis of understanding regarding key
issues affecting the Arctic.
International
Looking beyond the United States, understanding the Arctic is inherently global in
nature. The circumpolar North spans the eight nations that constitute the Arctic Coun-
cil and draws interest from dozens of other countries. Furthermore, changes in the
Arctic have global implications. Existing and emerging research questions are often
multidimensional across international domains. Arctic research and our ability to act
113

on our knowledge benefit from cooperation with those who share an interest in Arctic
matters.
One of the most influential developments in scientific discovery in recent decades is
the internationalization of science. This is in part a result of the vast improvement in
international communication. But it is at least equally a consequence of the nature of
key scientific questions, which increasingly view the Earth as a system, within which
understanding requires a global perspective. Documented trends in international
scientific mobility (Van Noorden, 2012) reflect the increased national diversity of the
scientific community and emphasize the benefits of cross-fertilization of ideas and
methodologies as we move toward a multicultural and interdisciplinary scientific
world.
Much Arctic research is undertaken by U.S. researchers outside of U.S. territories and
by researchers from non-Arctic countries. A variety of formal and informal arrange-
ments exist by which researchers and agencies cooperate with their counterparts in
other countries, including the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and its
associated bodies, the Arctic Council and its working groups, the International Arctic
Social Sciences Association (IASSA), and the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists
(APECS). These collaborations help place findings from the U.S. Arctic in a wider con-
text and provide a way to learn from experience elsewhere when it comes to applying
science to management, regulation, and governance.
The International Polar Year demonstrated the tremendous value in international
cooperation for Arctic research (e.g., NRC, 2012a). Far more was accomplished collab-
oratively than could have been done by any one country, regardless of Arctic research
expenditures. Research under the Arctic Council similarly illustrates what can be
accomplished by working together. The scientific community is looking forward to
the new Belmont Forum Arctic Collaborative Research Action (CRA) focused on Arctic
observing and Arctic sustainability science. The new Scientific Cooperation Task Force
(SCTF) of the Arctic Council, co-chaired by Russia, Sweden, and the United States, is a
promising step in the right direction. The SCTF will report to ministers in 2015 on ways
to improve scientific research cooperation among the eight Arctic States.
There is a great deal of interest in cooperation among individual researchers, among
agencies, and among countries engaged in Arctic research. But more could be done to
collaboratively address existing and emerging Arctic research questions in a time of
rapid change and rapidly expanding human presence. A potential method for foster-
ing international collaboration beyond the level of individual researchers is to explore
opportunities for U.S. projects (e.g., SEARCH) to work with international projects
(e.g., ACCESS, ICE-ARC). The FY2013-2017 Arctic Research Plan recognizes this with
114

references to the necessity for international partnerships to meet research goals, for
example, Successful implementation of this five-year research plan will require close
coordination among . . . international partners (Executive Office of the President, 2013,
p. 6).
Improved collaboration is needed on both the funding of research that crosses
borders (see Investing in Research section later in this chapter) and the logistics of
doing international research. Arctic research frequently entails complex logistical ar-
rangements, often international in scope, with long lead times to obtain permission
to access remote field sites. But the necessity for international collaboration extends
well beyond logistics. Access to the necessary analytical tools and remotely sensed
imagery commonly requires international cooperation. Because of the geographically
remote nature of much of the Arctic, specialized research platforms and instruments
are often necessary to advance regional knowledge and understanding. These needs
range from detailed in situ observations to satellite observations and from year-round
manned field stations to research vessels. U.S. infrastructure in this regard is finite;
international coordination of infrastructure and cost sharing is essential to take ad-
vantage of available observing platforms (e.g., ships, aircraft, fixed offshore platforms,
coastal research stations). At present, individual projects have the responsibility to
navigate these complex issues. A higher-level effort to streamline this process would
greatly facilitate research, and the community is looking forward to the findings from
the Arctic Councils SCTF on this issue. Coordination that extends beyond national and
international organizations to active participation with the private sector is more likely
to result in beneficial new insights. The scientific community also needs to be assured
that there are data repositories where data in support of published research can be
permanently archived in a format accessible across the international community, and
to the public at large (see Managing and Sharing Information section later in this
chapter).
Interdisciplinary
Interdisciplinary cooperation leads to improved understanding of the complex inter-

actions within and among the physical, biological, and social domains of the Arctic.
Researchers often need time to learn to connect the theories, concepts, and language
of one discipline to those of another, and for research teams to build a collective
understanding of the phenomena they are studying. Interdisciplinary collaboration,
however, is often difficult to initiate and can be difficult to sustain without specific
allocation of funding for such research. Yet it is in the connections between research
domains that many emerging questions lie. Our ability to tackle these with vigor and
115

success requires considering how interdisciplinary research is encouraged and sup-

ported and what can be done to foster greater efforts in this area. A more strategic
approach, with suitable direction from IARPC, will allow us to reap more benefit from
our Arctic research efforts and expenditures (see Funding Comprehensive Systems
and Synthesis Research section later in this chapter).
Intersectoral
Also of substantial importance is the question of intersectoral cooperation, including

public-private partnerships. The private sector sponsors a great deal of Arctic research,
often related to the prospects for, and the effects of, industrial activity. Too often, such
research is questioned or dismissed amid perceptions of bias due to funding source,
but it is shortsighted to ignore the data and findings that come from private-sector
research. It is similarly shortsighted to keep most of this research proprietary. Findings
of commercial value naturally belong to those who paid for them. But data concerning
basic conditions or research that helps illuminate particular processes or changes is
valuable for all, and the greater dissemination and use of such data and research can
also help provide quality control, reducing the likelihood and perception of bias. Some
efforts have begun in this direction, and after evaluation, effective efforts could be
promoted and emulated (see Partnerships with Industry later in this chapter).
Cooperation through Social Media
Looking ahead, we need to explore the use of social media as cooperative sources of
information as well as cooperative tools to inform decision making. As recommended
in the International Study of Arctic Change report, Responding to Arctic Environmen-
tal Change, we need development of an interactive, widely accessible, stakeholder
engagement tool that can be used to develop new research priorities and research
questions (Murray et al., 2012, p. 15). Establishment of issue trackers helps identify
concerns emerging from communities. Social networking can then help with collect-
ing knowledge through restructuring expert attention to bring in needed expertise
and collaborators for problem solving (e.g., Nielsen, 2011). Regarding responses, social
networking can encourage contributionsthrough crowdsourcing, fostering local
experimentation, disseminating knowledge and best practices, and supporting imple-
mentation elsewherethus spreading innovation among communities, agencies,
and industry. Through these cooperative processes, social media can foster grassroots
approaches to proactive management of Arctic change. Might social media also help
with the knotty problem of making scientific products more useful for stakeholders?
116

FIGURE 4.1 The Sea Ice Outlook from June 2013. The intent of the Outlook is to summarize all available
data rather than issue predictions. SOURCE: ARCUS.
The Sea Ice Outlook along with the Sea Ice for Walrus programs are powerful exam-
ples. The SEARCH Sea Ice Outlook (Figure 4.1) synthesizes and publicly posts com-
munity estimates of the current state and expected minimum of sea ice. The Sea Ice
for Walrus Outlook is a weekly report on sea ice conditions for subsistence hunters,
coastal communities, and other interested members of the public. The Canadian Polar
Commission recently launched the Polar Knowledge App, intended to expand public
access to polar information.1 In addition, some science blogs are interpreting scientific
studies for a lay public and providing broader context.
1 See http://www.polarcom.gc.ca/eng/content/polar-knowledge-app.
117

SUSTAINING LONG-TERM OBSERVATIONS
Science depends on data. Individual projects generate data specific to their questions
and hypotheses, but the interpretation of results usually relies on comparison of those
results with data from longer periods or over larger areas, to place them in context. In
many cases, this means data from long-term observations or monitoringwithout
which our ability to detect change, constrain models, and analyze the significance of
research findingsis greatly diminished, if not lost entirely.
Rationale for Long-Term Observations
A major challenge facing society is to ascertain, comprehend, and forecast rates and
patterns of change across the Arctic that arise from physical, biological, or human
causes. Society can address this challenge through an understanding of the resiliency
and vulnerability of the Arctic system. Resiliency is the capacity of a system to with-
stand disturbances to its structure, function, and feedbacks (Folke et al., 2004; Walker
et al., 2004), whereas vulnerability describes the extent to which a system is harmed
by exposure or sensitivity to stressor(s) and by constraints on its adaptive capacity in
response to the stressor (Turner et al., 2003). When designed to characterize resiliency
and vulnerability, monitoring, the long-term and systematic measurement of appropri-
ate system characteristics is essential in meeting this societal challenge.
When suitably constructed, monitoring systems serve a variety of purposes for a
variety of stakeholders. On one hand, long-term observations enable quantifica-
tion of the natural variability, over a range of temporal and spatial scales, of complex
noisy systems. Once the noise is defined and quantified, long-term observations
enable detection of gradual, systematic changes. On the other hand, because of the
nonlinear character of many systems, a carefully developed monitoring scheme may
detect abrupt and/or unanticipated changes (e.g., detecting what we dont know we
dont know). In this capacity, long-term observations serve as part of an early warning
system (e.g., NRC, 2013), which then allows for a choice of responses. These responses
will vary depending upon the nature of the change, but they could include collecting
focused measurements designed to better understand the emerging phenomenon;
development or initiation of mitigating procedures, if deemed feasible; or, in the event
of a potential catastrophe, appropriate emergency responses. Long-term observations
also provide the temporal-spatial context in which shorter-duration, hypothesis-driven
process studies can be undertaken. In this context it allows researchers to determine
whether the processes under consideration occurred under typical or atypical condi-
118

tions. This was, for example, a key ingredient of the U.S. GLOBEC program2 in which
short-term process studies were embedded within the framework of a monitoring
program.
Monitoring is a synergistic component in modeling and hypothesis development. It
provides datasets necessary for the evaluation and development of models and/or
suggests investigations needed to improve model parameterizations and/or pro-
cesses. Models provide an integrated approach to understanding system behavior and
can be used to modify the monitoring program as necessary. Models also augment
monitoring efforts by suggesting how unsampled system components may be evolv-
ing. Monitoring and model results both contribute to the construction of hypotheses
on how the system or parts of it operate.
Much of our recognition and understanding of the dramatic changes occurring in the
Arctic has emerged from long-term observations. For example, routine measurements
revealed the dramatic warming of the Arctic atmosphere and the accelerating decline
in sea ice; both are consistent with some of the earliest model predictions of climate
response to greenhouse gas warming (Manabe and Stouffer, 1980). Another example
is the systematic approach adopted by the Arctic and Bonanza Creek Long-Term Eco-
logical Research (LTER)3 programs conducted in the tundra and boreal forest biomes
of Alaska, respectively. Although independently initiated, these LTERs are established
along a latitudinal and ecological gradient and each attempts to understand the resil-
iency and vulnerability of the respective biome to a warming climate. Both LTERs have
been in existence for at least 25 years and involve myriad interdisciplinary process
studies and modeling activities. Although different investigators are involved in each,
there are consistent efforts to compare and contrast the results across biomes.
One important finding from the integration of plot-scale long-term studies of vegeta-
tion dynamics, fire cycles, and their links to climate in the Bonanza Creek LTER (Van
Cleve and Vierech, 1981; Van Cleve et al., 1983) with broader-scale measurements of a
series of wildfire-disturbed boreal forests of interior Alaska is the likely shift in some
Alaskan boreal forests from a spruce-dominated to a broadleaf-dominated landscape
due to increased burn severity (Figure 4.2). This transition to more high-severity
wildfires is occurring in conjunction with thawing of permafrost and the decomposi-
tion of previously frozen organic carbon in boreal forest soils. Through large-scale
manipulation experiments at the Arctic LTER at Toolik Lake, researchers have found
that response to heating soil, shading, or altering soil moisture is slow, with responses
delayed until 9 or 10 years post initiation of the treatment (Hobbie and Kling, 2014).
2 See http://www.usglobec.org/.
3 See http://www.lternet.edu/sites/bnz.
119

FIGURE 4.2 Conceptual model showing the shift in resilience cycle from a coniferous-dominated (left)
to a hardwood-dominated system (right) triggered by an increase in fire severity. High organic matter
thickness following low-severity fires in black spruce allows for the regeneration of slow-growing woody
plants, inhibits hardwood regeneration, and results in rapid reestablishment of a thick moss layer that
insulates the soil and permits the return of permafrost. High-severity fires remove thick organic layers and
allow for the rapid establishment of hardwoods, which store large amounts of C and N in aboveground
biomass, and create conditions (high litter quality and warm soils) that accelerate forest floor decomposi-
tion rates. SOURCE: Adapted from Johnstone et al. (2010).
These experiments are designed to explore future effects of continuing climate

change, but at an accelerated rate. The LTER observations and experiments predict
increased productivity and biomass of grasses and shrubs by the end of this century
and an eventual shift from tundra to boreal forest, with great disruption of fish and
wildlife habitats (Hobbie and Kling, 2014). Whole-ecosystem experiments conducted
at the Arctic LTER near Toolik Lake, which have continued for more than two decades,
have provided valuable insight into aboveground production and biomass in moist
tussock tundra. They have demonstrated that the vegetation response to marked
climate warming is relatively small when compared to annual variation. Linking these
longitudinal studies at the LTERs with shorter-term but broader-scale studies offers
opportunity to improve understanding of the changing Arctic and boreal landscape.
Coordinating Long-Term Observation Efforts
As outlined above, the guiding principles behind a monitoring effort seem logical, but
the design of a monitoring program in a system as complex and diverse as the Arctic
120

is far from obvious. A number of questions arise immediately. What is the purpose of
a particular monitoring activity? How is it integrated into other monitoring efforts, in-
cluding those in other regions and/or disciplines? Where should the long-term obser-
vations occur? How long should the program continue? What are the specific variables
to be measured, at what rate, and over what time and space scales should these be
sampled? What measurement techniques (including calibration and algorithms used
in interpreting the data) should be used? Who should perform the measurements?
Who should pay for it? Who evaluates the utility of the measurements? Who interprets
and synthesizes results? How do we ensure that the results of individual efforts are
blended into a coherent picture of the emerging Arctic that is of use to stakeholders
and society? Although this committee recognizes the importance of these questions,
it cannot provide definitive answers, and rather suggests that the following issues be
considered.
Involvement of northern communities is an important component of monitoring
efforts in the Arctic. This includes not only the use of traditional knowledge but also
the involvement of local residents in data collection (e.g., Alessa et al., 2013; Hunting-
ton et al., 2011). We expect that a carefully developed approach that involves local
residents would provide numerous benefits (see Growing Human Capacity section).
Local involvement can enhance cross-cultural communication, including ideas about
research strategy and interpretation; provide an important degree of ownership by lo-
cal residents in the measurements being made; stimulate the involvement of decision
makers (Danielsen et al., 2010) and schoolchildren within these communities, enhance
seasonal coverage; and facilitate overall logistics.
Successful monitoring programs address linkages between different parts of a system
(e.g., Alessa et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2013). The Arctic spans a broad latitudinal range that
encompasses a number of physical, biological, and social systems. The acquisition of
societal datademographic, infrastructure, health, economicis essential for many
purposes. Thus there are many national and more localized efforts to collect such
data, from national censuses to local surveys. The results of these programs are widely
used in social science and other research, but they have drawbacks. Some, like the U.S.
Census, are conducted at 10-year intervals, providing only coarse temporal resolu-
tion. In other cases, different jurisdictions collect information on different aspects of
a topic, such as subsistence harvest production versus participation in hunting and
fishing. The indicators that are documented are usually chosen for purposes other
than scientific research and rarely with the specific context of the Arctic in mind (e.g.,
AHDR, 2004; Baffrey and Huntington, 2010). The Survey of Living Conditions in the
121

Arctic (SLiCA4) has attempted to remedy this shortcoming by developing indicators

of specific relevance to Arctic societies and their needs, but it cannot gather all that is
needed, leaving many gaps in our ability to connect societal trends with each other
or with biophysical processes. The Arctic Social Indicators project, which follows up on
the activities of the Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR, 2004), offers ideas for
indicators of Arctic human development. Other measures of societal factors include
adaptive capacity indicators, which could be further developed for the Arctic to allow
systematic assessment of adapting to change and allow communities and decision
makers to weigh trade-offs in adaptation investments (e.g., Fussel, 2009). Efforts such
as these, although limited, can yield lessons about the challenges of collecting societal
data.
Monitoring efforts that address the physical and biological systems of the Arctic in-
clude observations of the atmosphere and cryosphere and their interactions with the
boreal forests and the tundra biomes in the terrestrial realm and the broad continental
shelves and subbasins of the marine environment. Each evolves and processes energy
and materials in distinctive ways, subject to external forcing. Each also communicates
with other systems through energy and material exchanges along a variety of path-
ways. For example, the marine and terrestrial environments are linked to one another
through species migrations, river systems, changing glacial landscapes, and ocean
currents. Some of the results from the Bonanza Creek LTER illustrate how addressing
linkages within a monitoring program could be considered. That research indicates an
increase in carbon export into Arctic river networks as a result of the degradation of
permafrost and fire disturbances (Kicklighter et al., 2013). It is also apparent that rivers
are the primary pathway by which mercury is entering the Arctic Ocean (Fisher et al.,
2012) and that riverine mercury concentrations are likely to increase because of an in-
crease in soil disturbances (Fisher et al., 2012; Leitch et al., 2007). This has implications
for the Arctic Oceans carbon and suspended sediment cycles, trace metal budgets,
and the Arctic trophic system. An appropriately designed Arctic monitoring system
would include measurements of state variables and rates of critical processes within
each system and energy and material fluxes along the pathways linking each to the
other.
Within the marine environment, a similar ecological/latitudinal gradient monitoring
approach is evolving in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas under the auspices
of the Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO)5 program (Grebmeier et al., 2010).
The DBO program is an international effort involving collection of data by Canadian,
4 See http://www.arcticlivingconditions.org/.
5 See http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/dbo/.
122

Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, and U.S. scientists, coordinated through the
international Pacific Arctic Group6 and, within the United States, through the IARPC
DBO Interagency task team. As conceived, the DBO is a holistic approach to track and
understand the effects of changing oceanographic and sea ice conditions on the
marine ecosystem. Until recently, biophysical sampling has occurred at several shelf
biological hotspots from research vessels-of-opportunity that transit the region. The
biological sampling, which samples water column and benthic organisms, seabirds,
and marine mammals to evaluate species composition, biomass, and the size and
condition of key organisms, also includes standard physical oceanographic and
nutrient measurements. The shipboard sampling is largely limited to the open-water
season but is supplemented by satellite measurements and data from oceanographic
moorings (two of the DBO sites have biophysical mooring arrays, and two sites have
only physical mooring arrays). However, at present many of the moorings are tempo-
rary components of limited-duration process studies, under national or international
auspices, being undertaken in the region. Although the DBO program provides an
emerging opportunity for assessing biophysical changes over western Arctic shelves,
a more concerted effort to coordinate and systematize the sampling over seasonal
and interannual scales will be necessary. As a result of western Arctic DBO activities,
the Norwegian government is proposing a similar DBO project in the marine waters
surrounding Svalbard.
The sampling strategy (duration, sampling rate, spatial extent, locations) of a particu-
lar monitoring effort will vary, depending upon the process or variable of interest.
There will be a need to measure key system attributes at multi-decadal time scales at
relevant rates and obvious locations. Other monitoring efforts need to be adaptive,
taking into consideration results that emerge from retrospective (including paleocli-
matic) studies, models, and other observations. These may suggest a hypothesis-based
observation approach, perhaps of shorter duration (3 to 5 years) with a specific focus.
If the results are found to address a critical need, then the sampling may transition
into a longer-term effort. An adaptive monitoring effort also allows for the findings
of an intensive process study to adjust monitoring activities. Statistical approaches or
data assimilation models can aid in devising optimal sampling strategies. However,
it is almost certain that resources will be inadequate to execute an optimal sampling
strategy for many relevant variables. Here again, data assimilation models might clarify
the trade-offs in designing options for sub-optimal (from a statistical perspective)
sampling designs. Periodic evaluation can be used to determine whether the monitor-
ing efforts need to be modified, augmented, or suspended.
6 See pag.arcticportal.org.
123

The breadth and complexity of the Arctic system requires that long-term observations
be a shared undertaking, involving international partners and coordinated efforts by
government agencies, industry, communities, and scientists. We recognize the dif-
ficulties inherent in such coordination, given the different mission of each potential
partner. Nevertheless, many or some of the core variables comprising a monitoring
program will ideally meet disparate missions. One coordinating approach to consider
is a national committee composed of various stakeholders and scientists. Such a com-
mittees charge would be to: (1) enhance coordination among monitoring activities at
both the national and international level; (2) seek opportunities to increase sampling
efficiencies and organize responses to surprises; (3) address the various needs of the
diverse suite of stakeholders that benefit from long-term observations; (4) assist in pri-
oritizing these needs among stakeholders; and (5) communicate monitoring activities
and results to policy makers and stakeholders in a coherent manner. Such a commit-
tee could be organized by an existing entity like IARPC.
MANAGING AND SHARING INFORMATION
Just as science depends on data, scientific progress depends on access to data. As

Arctic research expands, and as datasets grow rapidly in an era of information technol-
ogy, keeping track of what has already been recorded or accomplished is increasingly
difficult. Current efforts to coordinate data management and access are commend-
able, but much remains to be done. Further progress is likely to depend upon con-
certed and coordinated efforts rather than reliance primarily on individual researchers
or funding programs.
Arctic science has a history of large and interdisciplinary programs, so there is some
precedent for successful management of complex datasets. The need for interdis-
ciplinary and intersectoral management is not limited to the Arctic, and there is an
opportunity for the Arctic research community to become a leader in developing a
culture of data management and sharing. Strategies for achieving the greater coop-
eration necessary for such a culture were addressed earlier in this chapter, and specific
suggestions for managing and sharing information are presented in this section.
Preserving the Legacy of Research through Data Preservation and Dissemination
We now understand the Arctic to be a tightly coupled, integrated system, where

changes in one component will reverberate through the system, initiating a cascade
of impacts in other components of the system (Roberts et al., 2010). Understanding
124

and quantifying these system interconnections is possible only through simultaneous

analyses of extensive and often numerous complex datasets from disparate sources.
As scientific urgency drives our research endeavors to collect more kinds of observa-
tions more frequently and at more numerous sites, we are compelled to develop new
techniques to analyze the resulting massive datasets (Pundsack et al., 2013). Moreover,
the recognized value of well-documented data for application in new and different
analyses places utmost priority upon data preservation, stewardship, and access by
multiple stakeholders. While placing great responsibility upon individual scientists and
agencies, this realization also elevates the collective responsibility of all engaged in
Arctic research to strive to garner the greatest value from our investments in observa-
tions and monitoring. The recently published U.S. Arctic Research Plan (Executive Of-
fice of the President, 2013) has charged all agencies to demonstrate new and updated
cyberinfrastructure tools to enhance data integration and application and identify
opportunities for sharing of technology and tools among interagency partners (p. 21).
To meet these pressing needs for more efficient utilization of our data resources, it is
imperative to establish interoperable data management systems that are adequate
for academic needs and to assess progress against agency/collaboration goals. De-
velopments in the field of informatics could yield important lessons for managing
large amounts of data and creating interoperable systems. Our present system of data
submission by researchers and curation by institutions often results in gaps in data
awareness, distribution, and quality of metadata. An additional challenge for data
management remains that of achieving interoperability of biophysical and socioeco-
nomic data, as well as determining how to integrate traditional ecological knowledge.
Integrating data management and quality control into network design aids in over-
coming such deficiencies. Currently, tremendous amounts of work are required by
researchers who compile data from various sources. Prescribed formats to be used by
all agencies, with structured data submission, archiving, and delivery, would greatly
enhance efficiency of analyses by the broader community. One solution would be
to create an interagency data management committee (possibly through IARPC) to
coordinate structure and dissemination protocols. Such a committee could identify
high-priority data sets and identify responsible agencies to support data collection.
Additionally, advances in curation technology will make integration of diverse datasets
easier and analysis of disparate data streams seamless.
Creating a Culture of Data Preservation and Sharing
Many advances in Arctic science have resulted from broad-scale synthesis of relevant
data streams. These advanced analyses have been made possible by technological
125

advancements in computing power and search capabilities. However, we can foresee

even greater advances on the horizon with the advent of data archiving and harvest-
ing techniques. Data curation has long been recognized as an essential function of
operational agencies, but it has only recently been acknowledged as an individual
responsibility of every investigator. Moving forward with every scientist accepting a
commitment to preserve and share his or her data will greatly enhance our capabili-
ties. To realize the utopian community of data sharing, it may be necessary to en-
courage data submission by requiring a portion of each grant be dedicated to data
curation. Concurrently, we need to establish a robust method of documenting and
crediting data sharing through a formal citation protocol. Also, such magnanimity of
data sharing has not always been the standard; support will be necessary to secure
older, stranded datasets and rescue those high-quality observations that may provide
essential clues to past rates of change.
Infrastructure to Ensure Data Flows from Observation

to Users, Stakeholders, and Archives
The service provided by formal data centers is clearly imperative, but it is quite dif-
ficult to secure funding to support such centers. Critical components of our research
infrastructure are agency-supported data centers, which are mission- and discipline-
specific, yet interconnected and transparent in terms of data accessibility. Reliable
computer systems for storing, accessing, and assessing the quality of data are the
crucial backbone of institutional repositories. Compatible architecture using a shared
cloud environment as a computer platform would greatly enhance data sharing and
transparent accessibility.
Real-time monitoring networks are indispensable for detecting and documenting
change, providing validation for model simulations, and elucidating the quantitative
relationship among related processes (see Maintaining Long-term Observations sec-
tion earlier in this chapter). It is essential that we sustain a commitment to maintain
monitoring networks for the long term, but it is also important that we establish a
more seamless flow of data from the observations, through quality checking or qual-
ity control, into a permanent long-term archive. The flow of data from our observing
networks into permanent archives can be disrupted or delayed, limiting our capacity
for analyses and syntheses.
A similar challenge arises when working with the traditional knowledge and local
observations of Arctic residents. Field scientists have long valued the knowledge and
wisdom of local residents. Roald Amundsen spent 1903 to 1905 in what is now known
126

as Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, Canada, collecting magnetic measurements and learning

from Inuit (Amundsen, 1908). These lessons in Arctic survival gave him the knowledge
required to complete the trek to the South Pole in 1911. The collective experience
of local observers and knowledge passed from one generation to the next reveal
evidence of the changing climate and environmental and ecosystem responses to
those changes, but this information source has not been fully utilized for its poten-
tial value for either inquiry-based science or as model validation data (Huntington,
2000; Huntington, 2011). It is incumbent upon the Arctic research community to more
fully engage local residents as partners and collaborators to ensure that the changes
observed today are correctly positioned in historical context and that projections of
future change connect environmental and social responses. Such an effort would help
address the problem of things we think we dont know, as described in Chapter 2. The
Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge in the Arctic (ELOKA) is among those
working to address this challenge (Pulsifer et al., 2012).
Data centers also need to serve a dual mission of archive and synthesis and be ca-
pable of integrating individual projects, real-time data streams, traditional knowledge,
and big data that are now accessible through a myriad of data-mining techniques.
We are presently limited in our ability to achieve major scientific advances because
of technological limitations in our capacity to efficiently synthesize and analyze big
data. The field of bioinformatics, the science of creating an understanding of complex
biological systems by leveraging large datasets and computing power, is a mature
field. Geoinformatics, using similar techniques in Earth science applications, is by
contrast relatively nascent. The big data necessary for such endeavors are emerging
from existing sensor networks and geophysical observatories currently placed in the
Arctic, with more planned for the future. Such big data processing capability enhances
our capacity for integration, synthesis, assimilation, and assessment and lends promise
to sweeping advancements in climate, ecosystem, and socioeconomic science. The
culture of data sharing and a strong set of data management standards are crucial for
the burgeoning field of geoinformatics and deserve high priority.
The goal of an Arctic cyberinfrastructure (CI) is to provide freely and openly accessible
quality-controlled datasets to a variety of users, including the public, management
agencies, industrial users, educators, and scientists. To achieve this goal, computing
infrastructure needs the capability to integrate data from diverse sampling platforms
(e.g., autonomous sensors collecting time-series data, process-oriented but relatively
short-lived field programs, and traditional ecological knowledge) interactively into a
coherent architecture. Ideally such a system would permit users to:
analyze and model Arctic processes;
127

develop and test hypotheses;

adjust measurement strategies to allow for adaptive sampling;
facilitate responses to environmental events;
enhance predictive capabilities on both short and long time scales; and
contribute to the maintenance and reliability of the measurement systems.
At a minimum, the Arctic CI requires data preservation and access as has been per-
formed traditionally by centrally managed data archives that ingest and serve meta-
data and data. More advanced data centers such as the Advanced Cooperative Arctic
Data and Information Service (ACADIS) and the National Center for Atmospheric Re-
search (NCAR) Earth Observing Laboratory (EOL) also provide software and advice on
metadata and data submission and facilitate data searches, access, formatting, and vi-
sualization. ACADIS is a joint effort by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC),
the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), UNIDATA, and NCAR that
was established to provide data archival, preservation, and access for projects funded
by NSFs Arctic Science Program, including the Arctic Observing Network (AON).
ACADIS also links to the EOL holdings and the data archive of the NSIDC. In addition,
ACADIS is presently hosting the PacMARS data archive. PacMARS is attempting to link,
under one data archive umbrella, the large number of marine-related datasets (includ-
ing those funded by agencies other than NSF) from the northern Bering, Chukchi, and
Beaufort seas.
Data sources from outside the U.S. academic research community (including those of
international scientists and governments, U.S. state and federal resource managers, in-
dustry, and the military) will also need to be integrated. SAON was established for this
purpose with a goal to support and strengthen the development of multinational en-
gagement for sustained and coordinated pan-Arctic observing and data sharing sys-
tems that serve societal needs, particularly related to environmental, social, economic
and cultural issues (SAON, 2011). The challenges of sustaining international observing
networks have impeded success in promoting open access to data among various
national data archives. Additional international partnerships and agreements are
necessary to promote truly transparent data access, which will open up new avenues
of research and application from a variety of stakeholders. For example, the Depart-
ment of Defenses first ever Arctic Strategy document stated, DoD will also collaborate
with international partners to employ, acquire, share, or develop the means required
to improve sensing, data collection and fusion, analysis, and information-sharing to
enhance domain awareness appropriately in the Arctic (DOD, 2013, p. 9).
The existing Arctic CI facilities allow the achievement of the listed goals to varying
degrees. However, as Arctic observing and modeling programs become more interdis-
128

ciplinary and more comprehensive networks of autonomous measurements evolve,

a more sophisticated CI system is desirable (Pundsack et al., 2013). Such a system
might follow the design criteria and incorporate the various elements of the develop-
ing CI components of NSFs Ocean Observing Initiative (OOI) and NOAAs Integrated
Ocean Observing System (IOOS). Both programs ingest and serve data in real time
from a large number of autonomous sensors. To take full advantage of such autono-
mous systems, we need to simultaneously improve our communications capability
to enable access to sensor networks in extremely remote locations. Presently, lack of
infrastructure and high-power requirements of some communication packages place
insurmountable limitations on remote monitoring capabilities. As outlined by Chave
et al. (2009), the OOI system includes the capability for operator-to-machine and
machine-to-machine control of data collection and analysis, enables model interac-
tion with data acquisition processes, supports virtual collaborations of observing
system resources among a variety of uses, and provides some degree of automation
in the planning and execution of observing system components. In addition, the OOI
CI acts as an operating system that provides the messaging, governance, and service
frameworks for the system. Meisinger et al. (2009) suggest that this architecture take
advantage of the cloud computing environment, which facilitates scalability and flex-
ibility. Scalability addresses users requirements that may encompass a broad range of
time and space scales and information types. Flexibility allows for the incorporation
of technological developments in distributed networks, sensor technologies, models,
and computing. These developments are well under way, and the lessons learned from
these activities are likely to prove valuable in guiding improvements to an Arctic CI.
Data Visualization and Analysis
Many gains have been made outside the Arctic science realm that could be brought
to bear on problems related to the Arctic. From this, we may find a wealth of what we
think we dont know.
Visualization technology is highly developed in the computer gaming industry, both
in hardware and software, and such technology can be applied to scientific use. Ad-
ditionally, visual analysis in industry has become highly advanced, for example the
seismic visualization capability of the oil industry. Leveraging advances like these for
the use of Arctic scientists and stakeholders could result in significant gains at modest
cost. Many users of data have a need for quick, easy visualization. Steps in this direc-
tion have been taken internationally through the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
129

FIGURE 4.3 Arctic Collaborative Environment (ACE) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) is
an Internet-based, open-access, Arctic-focused, environmental research and decision support system that
integrates data from existing remote sensing assets with products from existing and new environmental
models to provide monitoring, analysis, and visualization based on earth observation data and modeling.
With an initial focus on the Arctic region, researchers, students, search-and-rescue operators, native hunt-
ers, etc. can draw from the open-access data. SOURCE: https://ace.arsc.edu/workspace.
Program of the Arctic Council,7 the Arctic Portal,8 World Wildlife Fund,9 Conservation of
Arctic Flora and Fauna,10 and nationally through NOAAs Arctic Environmental Re-
sponse Management Application,11 NOAAs Earth Systems Research Laboratory,12 and
the emerging Arctic Collaborative Environment13 (Figure 4.3).
Once databases have the right data in terms of space (e.g., include downscaled model
results), time (e.g., are in real time when possible), and utility (e.g., are useful for both
basic research and decision support), the visualization challenge posed here is to gen-
7 See http://www.amap.no/.
8 See http://portal.inter-map.com.
9 See http://arkgis.org/about-us.aspx.
10 See http://www.caff.is/.
11 See https://www.erma.unh.edu/arctic/erma.html.
12 See http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/histdata/.
13 See https://ace.arsc.edu/.
130

erate or determine a system that can adapt to differing data formats, dimensions, and
other factors as well as to generate products responsive to the spatial and temporal
requirements and formats needed by various user communities. Further, the ability to
generate quantitative information becomes important. Methods of analysis (such as
differencing, statistical tools, and more complex numerical analyses) are integral needs
of such visualization packages. Success depends upon an increase in the types and
range of visualization data (e.g., completing multi-beam surveys in the Arctic Ocean,
improved access to satellite visualizations, development of real-time interactive visual-
izations so that sensor activation can be based on automated visual analyses).
In addition to visualization technology, the gaming industry has produced hardware
that has been co-opted into the scientific community. See, for example, the applica-
tions of the Microsoft Kinect (Mankoff and Russo, 2013). Another example is the inte-
gration of Graphics Processing Units into massively parallel computing architectures.
Miniaturization of data logging and wireless technologies including video is a tech-
nology transfer issue. For example, modern smartphones contain vanishingly small
cameras that are of increasing quality for both still images and video. In addition, the
wireless capability of these devices is impressive. The only (significant) deficiency is
robustness. These devices are already being investigated for acquisition and control
applications.
Digital photogrammetry from traditional aircraft is an underutilized resource. For
example, NASAs Operation IceBridge has flown numerous missions over the Arctic for
the past several years, primarily covering targets on land ice and sea ice (e.g., Studinger
et al., 2010). Each flight carries the Digital Mapping System nadir-viewing camera; from
this camera there is sufficient overlap on images to allow stereo photogrammetry.
MAINTAINING AND BUILDING OPERATIONAL CAPACITY
Its getting harder and harder to find a proper block of ice to sustain one of these stations.
Viktor Bovarsky, former polar explorer
It is critically important to establish and maintain consistent networks of measure-

ments and robust infrastructure to detect Arctic changes. There is a general lack of
in situ infrastructure across the Arctic, including both mobile and fixed observing
systems. Some long-term observatories are being discontinued and some satellite
systems are now retired, creating a gap in observing.
Observations need to be comparable across individual sites, allowing for network-
wide analyses and integration. Often there is a need for rapid response. Observations
131

need to be carried through autumn, winter, and spring, not only in the convenient
summer season. There is a need for in situ observations along the coast and below the
sea surface as well as coastal observing, because most remote systems (i.e., satellites)
have low resolution in coastal zones and no data are collected below the sea surface.
Finally, we need to leverage connections with industry.
Mobile Platforms
Mobile platforms are important for monitoring physical, biological, and chemical
oceanographic changes in the Arctic Ocean. Mobile platforms include floats (e.g.,
Argo), autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), ocean gliders, remotely operated
vehicles (ROVs), and larger platforms such as ships. Recent advances in miniaturizing
sensors have also enabled the use of marine mammals as mobile platforms (e.g., the
ocean tracking network), which could be extended to smaller animals in other envi-
ronments as well.
Submersible Platforms
AUVs, such as buoyancy-driven ocean gliders, propeller-driven AUVs, and Wave

Gliders14 have substantial potential for environmental monitoring, ocean process
studies, and inspection of industrial facilities in the Arctic Ocean and its adjoining
shelves. Each of these vehicles can collect high-resolution data that may be transmit-
ted in near real time. Mission protocols can either be preprogrammed or adjusted at
sea to permit adaptive sampling. These vehicles operate differently from one another
and can be used independently or collaboratively. Both gliders and AUVs have been
applied extensively in open-water settings and now increasingly in the ice-free waters
of the Arctic (e.g., Shroyer and Plueddemann, 2012; Timmermans and Winsor, 2013). All
of these vehicles come in a range of sizes and capabilities. Deployment and recovery
of the smaller vehicles can be done by hand from small vessels (including skiffs) and/
or through the ice, but larger vehicles require mechanical aids (hence larger vessels or
ice camps).
AUVs are well suited for mapping missions because their navigational ability is more
precise than gliders, especially if guided by transponders. However, their endurance
is limited to hours to days because their propulsion systems consume considerably
more power than gliders. Under-ice AUV operations have a long history (e.g., Francois
14 Manufactured by Liquid Robotics (http://liquidr.com/technology/wave-glider.html)
132

and Nodland, 1972) with recent applications including under-ice mapping (Wadhams,
2012), seafloor exploration (Kunz et al., 2009), bathymetric mapping (Crees et al., 2010),
and coastal hydrography (Plueddemann et al., 2012).
Gliders move vertically by adjusting buoyancy and use wings and a rudder to control
horizontal motion. They have relatively long endurance (weeks to months) and can
carry a diversity of sensor packages, although these are limited by size, weight, and
power consumption. Under-ice glider operations are a more recent development
(Curry et al., 2014). Wave Gliders ride the ocean surface and harness wave energy for
their propulsion and solar power for recharging their communications and sensor sys-
tems. Wave Gliders have been used in mid- and low latitudes, but their performance at
high latitudes has yet to be evaluated.
Gliders and AUVs can incorporate a variety of sensors, although the sensor configura-
tion (and subsequent mission) may be limited by the size of the vehicle and the power
required for the sensor configuration. Nevertheless, gliders and AUVs easily support
standard oceanographic sensors (e.g., Conductivity, Temperature, Depth [CTD] in-
struments, optics), and AUVs can also incorporate Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers
(ADCPs) and side-scan and/or ice-profiling sonars. Each vehicle has the potential to
incorporate passive acoustic recorders for marine mammal detection. As new ocean
sensors evolve, many of these are likely to be easily adaptable to one or more of these
vehicles. Sensor packages for Wave Gliders are more limited, given their size and their
propulsion mechanism, which limits the depth to which sensors can be deployed.
Nevertheless, Wave Gliders could be useful in sampling the uppermost 5 to 10 m in
ice-free conditions during the summer months.
There are several hurdles to overcome to expand the use of gliders and AUVs in the
Arctic. For example, gliders have difficulties navigating under ice, although the under-
ice navigation approach of Curry et al. (2014) is promising. Those approaches will be
further refined as outlined in the Office of Naval Researchs Marginal Ice Zone Program
(Lee et al., 2012). In some regions of the Arctic, swift currents may result in glider loss
or prevent the glider from conducting or completing its mission. Depending on the
capacity of its buoyancy engine, strongly stratified waters (associated with ice melt
and/or river outflows) may prevent the glider from surfacing. Larger buoyancy engines
such as those used in the Exocetus Coastal Glider (Imlach and Mahr, 2012) could over-
come the impediments associated with swift currents and stratification. Through-ice
glider deployments and recoveries also deserve further exploration. Necessary glider
improvements include incorporating inertial and acoustic navigation systems and a
glider propulsion mechanism that would be used intermittently to enable gliders to
navigate precisely to an ice hole for recovery.
133

A variety of short-duration, attended AUV deployments under ice have been dem-
onstrated. Extended, unattended operations beneath the ice in the high Arctic will
require substantial new developments for navigating, providing power, and communi-
cations. Such developments would include an autonomous on-ice power and commu-
nication system that drifts with the ice and incorporates a through-ice docking port by
which the AUV can recharge its batteries, transfer data to the surface, and receive new
mission guidelines. It would also require the distribution of an acoustic transponder
network (drifting with the ice or fixed on moorings or on the ocean floor) and acoustic
modems for passing the position of drifting beacons to the vehicle. Improvements in
decision-making software for docking and for choosing the appropriate set of tran-
sponders by which to navigate are also needed. An alternative docking scenario may
be feasible in the event that offshore hydrocarbon development occurs and subsea
pipelines extend onshore. It may be possible to incorporate fixed AUV docking ports
and communication and power cables with the pipeline.
Although these are formidable hurdles, many of the necessary elements are currently
being developed. A specific challenge is to merge these capabilities into an integrated
system for use in the Arctic. Substantial advancement is anticipated over the next 3 to
5 years driven by scientific research as well as interest in seafloor mapping and subsea
resources. For example, the OOI is addressing unattended AUV power and recharge
systems, data storage and communications, and two-way command and control
issues. A prudent course of action would be to allow successful resolution of these
issues by the AUV community, while simultaneously planning how to adapt AUVs for
the unique conditions of the Arctic. It is nevertheless conceivable that such a system
may be feasible and applicable to the Arctic within the next 10 years.
In addition to autonomous vehicles, a variety of drifting sensor platforms (buoys)
has been developed for Arctic Ocean applications. These buoys are either installed
into and drift with the ice or drift in the ocean below the ice. These include ice mass
balance (IMB) buoys (Jackson et al., 2013; Richter-Menge et al., 2006), designed to
determine rates of ice and snow accretion and ablation; autonomous ocean flux buoys
(AOFB) that measure the turbulent fluxes of heat, salt, and momentum between the
upper ocean mixed layer and the ice; and ice-tethered profilers (ITP; Krishfield et al.,
2008) that sample the upper ocean hydrography and, depending on configuration,
a variety of other parameters including fluorescence, irradiance, oxygen, and veloc-
ity (from within ~5 m of the ice to 250 to 800 meters, depending upon application).
The IMBs, AOFBs, and ITPs use Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) for positioning and
transmit data via Iridium. Polar profiling floats (PPF) are analogous to the profiling
floats used in the Argo float program. Specifically, the floats drift at a fixed depth but
periodically rise to the surface, profiling the temperature and salinity structure of the
134

water column. Once at the surface they transmit the data via satellite, receive a GPS
fix, and then descend again. PPFs do not break through the ice, but they will surface if
open water is present and then transmit their data and obtain a GPS fix. For periods of
extended under-ice operations, the PPFs use fixed sound sources for geopositioning
but store their data until they reach open water. Although most of these devices have
been developed for ice and ocean physics applications, it is feasible that other sensors
can be adapted to these as well.
Argo floats currently span all oceans except the Arctic, where access to sea surface
communications is limited. Enabling them to be used in the Arctic Ocean would
greatly advance our understanding of physical changes within this oceans deeper
water masses. A technology proposed by Sagen et al. (2011) would enable this tech-
nology to be deployed in the Arctic Ocean by the installation of a basin-wide undersea
navigation and communication system.
Research Vessels
Numerous reports have discussed the continued needs for ships capable of working in
the Arctic Ocean (e.g., Dunbar et al., 2012; NRC, 2003; NRC, 2007; NRC, 2011; USCG, 2013;
U.S. Navy, 2009). All have identified research questions that can be suitably addressed
only with the access provided by research, icebreaker, and drilling ships (rather than
autonomous or remote instrumentation). Sustained use of ships is also envisioned for
deployment/recovery of stationary or mobile installations equipped with autonomous
samplers (e.g., moorings, AUVs/gliders). With the diminished summer sea ice extent,
and the new availability of the ice-capable research vessel R/V Sikuliaq, as well as other
non-ice-capable research vessels, access to a larger portion of the Arctic Ocean during
ice-free months can be achieved using the assets at hand.
However, access to some regions of the Arctic will still require the use of a medium
or heavy icebreaker. A number of emerging research questions in the Arctic can be
addressed only through shipboard access during all times of the year. This can be
achieved by expanding the capabilities of ice-capable ships and icebreakers to de-
ploy and support traditional and new equipment, instrumentation, and technologies
in ice-covered seas. Research questions pertaining to oceanic gateway, sea surface
temperatures, long-term climate excursions, gas hydrates, oceanic-crust architecture,
and tectonic as well as magmatic evolution of the Arctic Ocean Basin require access
to deep drilling capability with riser and blowout preventer systems. Drilling of the
seafloor could be accomplished through management of ship and sea ice movements
using both a moon pool and sophisticated ship-handling technology. Advanced ice
135

clearing capabilities are also necessary for deployment of AUVs and ROVs in sea ice.
UAVs will also be increasingly utilized in the Arctic, and research vessels and icebreak-
ers need to be capable of supporting the deployment of UAVs.
Present U.S. icebreaker capability for medium-to-heavy ice is minimal. The USCGC
Healy, a medium icebreaker with a primary mission of science (Figure 4.4), is at mid-life
(commissioned in 2000) and will need to be replaced, under normal ship life length, in
~15 to 20 years. Furthermore, the Healy crew is rotated approximately every 2 years,
diminishing institutional memory and science experience in the operation of the ship.
Retaining crews for longer periods of time would improve the operational capacity
of the Healy, resulting in more efficient use of science resources. The heavy icebreaker
USCGC Polar Star has recently returned to service after extensive refurbishment and
will primarily serve national security interests in the Arctic and McMurdo Station in
Antarctica. The science mission requirements for a new polar icebreaker were recently
updated at the request of the National Science Foundation (Dunbar et al., 2012). That
report identified the need for a medium icebreaker research vessel to address current
and future research questions while being reasonably economical to operate (in lieu
of a heavy icebreaker). Still, it is important to identify a means to increase heavy ice-
FIGURE 4.4 Scientists obtain samples on the sea ice during a cruise to the northern Chukchi Sea using
the USCGC Healy (background). SOURCE: Steve Roberts.
136

breaking capability, either through new construction or by leasing a vessel that can
be used either for science or to provide escort services for a less ice-capable research
icebreaker.
It is also important to retain and increase access to non-icebreaking research vessels
in the Arctic through increased funding for Arctic research, increased coordination
of research activities to maximize use of available assets, greater use of private sec-
tor assets (including research vessels as well as platforms of opportunity), and the
development of large, multi-investigator, multidisciplinary research programs and by
operating research icebreaking assets as efficiently as possible. At present, research
vessel time is available primarily on the USCGC Healy or non-UNOLS vessels. Because
of the downsizing of the UNOLS fleet, availability of platforms in the U.S. research
fleet for Arctic work is inadequate. Additionally, the perception that inclusion of ship
time in research proposals diminishes the likelihood of funding has driven a decline
in the number of proposals requesting ship time across all oceanographic disciplines
(UNOLS, 2013).
Fixed Platforms and Systems
A range of stationary marine platforms already exists. Some types are used routinely
(e.g., moorings), whereas others are relatively rare or absent in the Arctic, although
commonly deployed in other oceanic regions (e.g., shore-based installations, cabled
marine observatories). There is still much room for improvement in the capabilities
and deployment of both stationary (sea-floor deployment) and semi-stationary (sea-
ice deployment) platforms from which to monitor a range of ocean and atmosphere
characteristics over all seasons. The platform types include bottom-moored and
ice-tethered profilers equipped with a range of physical, meteorological, biological,
and chemical sensors; free-floating and ice embedded buoys; cabled marine observa-
tories; and shoreline instrumentation such as tide gauges, meteorological packages,
and coastal ocean dynamics applications radar (CODAR) in remote locations. It is also
desirable to network data collected from these remote installations into a common
location.
In addition to these marine-based fixed observatories, there already exist many terres-
trial observatories that need to be sustained in order to address critical Arctic research
questions. An example is Summit Station in central Greenland, where atmospheric and
snow chemistry measurements have been made for decades, making it an important
node in the network of Arctic climate observatories. Similarly, Toolik Field Station in
Alaska provides an important observational platform.
137

Efforts to combine these in situ observations with local community and traditional
knowledge, so that local residents priorities with respect to climate change can be
monitored and assessed, are critical. It is also important to integrate local and commu-
nity-based observing into operational and research activities. We need to empower
local residents to monitor their own environments and assist in the coordination of
these community-based monitoring observations (Pulsifer et al., 2014). These locally
based observing platforms require strong partnerships between communities and
scientists to capture the knowledge of community members. One valuable aspect
of these observatories is the ability to place current observations in a local historical
context. Local involvement is discussed further in the section entitled Community
Engagement later in this chapter.
Remote Sensing
Satellite and airborne observations provide the largest spatial coverage of the Arctic
and have proven to be important tools for detecting the impacts of climate change.
For example, satellite remote sensing data have allowed the quantification of sea ice
loss and the mass loss of ice sheets that contribute to sea-level rise; surface tempera-
ture changes; atmospheric changes; shrub expansion northward; changing wetlands
and lakes on the north slope; and coastal shoreline changes. Remote sensing makes it
possible to scale what is observed on the ground at plot scales up to landscape scales
for improved broadscale understanding of patterns of change and for extrapolating
that knowledge to grid cells for modeling. Satellite remote sensing has and will con-
tinue to play a major role in monitoring and detection of change in the Arctic.
Satellites
Arctic conditions present many challenges to the interpretation of satellite remote

sensing data. The Arctic is characterized by low solar illumination, low vegetation
biomass, low primary productivity, perennial snow and sea ice, prolonged darkness,
persistent low clouds, and frequent temperature inversions, all of which severely limit
radiometer accuracy and monitoring capabilities. Much progress has been made in
recent decades in remote sensing applications, but many obstacles remain in retriev-
ing useful information from high latitudes. For example, some satellite systems fly in
orbits that simply do not provide Arctic coverage. In addition, many remote sensing
products and calibration algorithms are developed for temperate or tropical systems
and thus may be inappropriate for the Arctic. The standard atmospheric correction al-
gorithms such as those used by the Landsat Ecosystem Disturbance Adaptive Process-
138

ing System (LEDAPS) do not work well in the tundra because of changing solar angle
variation across the scene. In addition, standard image products from sensors such as
NASAs Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) or the Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer-Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) are developed pri-
marily for temperate or tropical systems; the MODIS net and gross primary-productiv-
ity products overestimate low-productivity sites such as tundra ecosystems (Turner et
al., 2006). Cloud detection over snow- and ice-covered scenes also remains a challenge
for imagers and sounders, and the frequent temperature inversions over Arctic regions
are problematic for retrieving vertical profiles. At an Arctic remote sensing workshop
in October 2013, participants cited the lack of calibration of remote sensing products
to the Arctic as the number one current concern for effectively observing changes in
the Arctic.15
For airborne and satellite remote sensing collections, field data are important for
training and validation; these data require collection over an area representative of
the spatial resolution or minimum mapping unit of the remote sensing platform. In
this regard, distributed measurements may be collected across a somewhat homoge-
neous area and averaged to relate to the image observation resolution. For example,
for mapping vegetation cover to a minimum mapping unit of 0.2 ha, field characteriza-
tion data require collection in a representative 40 m x 50 m area. For coarse resolution
satellite platforms (1 km or greater) typically the observed landscape is not homoge-
neous for a sufficient number of coincident field measurements to be made. In this
case, an intermediate remote sensing product (~30 m resolution) may be employed,
where the field data are used to train or validate the intermediate product across a
range of homogeneous cover types within the coarse resolution cell of the targeted
sensor (Liang et al., 2002), and then these intermediate data are upscaled to the coarse
resolution sensor. In some cases this intermediary step is not an option and a network
of field measurements is necessary across the resolution cell (e.g., soil moisture from
passive microwave; Jackson et al., 2010). The types of data that are necessary for ad-
dressing the existing and emerging questions raised in Chapter 3 and that have the
potential to become available from satellite sensors include the following:
Lake depth (bathymetry), precipitation, and evapotranspiration. Remote sensing has
been/is being used to map where the water is (MODIS for lakes, AMSRE for fractional
wetness), but characterization of the impact of climate on surface water and hydrol-
ogy cannot be attained without information on lake depth and other hydrology pa-
rameters (e.g., precipitation, evapotranspiration). NASAs Global Precipitation Measure-
15NSSI Remote Sensing-Derived Monitoring Products for the Arctic Workshop (http://www.northslope.org
/event/products2013/).
139

ment (GPM) mission is scheduled for 2014 launch and will address the precipitation
needs.
Sea ice and land ice thickness. These data have been successfully retrieved from NASAs
Ice, cloud, and land Elevation Satellite/Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (ICESat/
GLAS). Together with aerial surveys from the IceBridge program, a continuous record
of ice and snow thickness estimates is being collected and will be extended by ICESat2
(scheduled for launch in 2015). These data will assist in addressing emerging questions
related to changes in ocean/ice/atmosphere energy exchange, ocean currents, and sea
level rise.
Snow depth on ice surfaces. The ICESat/GLAS and other laser altimeters are able to
estimate the thickness of snow and ice as a freeboard measurement. The laser altim-
eters reflect from the snow-air interface; therefore, to obtain snow depth on ice, radar
altimetry, which reflects from the snow-ice interface, is also needed. Others have used
passive microwave data to estimate snow depth. More consistent measurements are
needed with better spatial coverage. Snow information is essential to answer ques-
tions related to surface energy exchange and for sea ice thickness.
Permafrost, soil moisture, active layer depth, and soil organic carbon stocks. Satellites are
beginning to provide estimates of changes in high-latitude vegetation, freeze-thaw
processes, soil moisture, and burn severity. However, these are limited by calibration of
the systems and algorithms developed for temperate systems. For example, standard
burn-severity mapping algorithms do not work well in the tundra, but scientists are
developing algorithms specific for the Arctic (e.g., Loboda et al., 2013). Also, many of
these systems have coarse spatial resolution (e.g., Soil Moisture Active Passive [SMAP]
has 3 to 9 km resolution). Although SMAP will provide data on freeze-thaw processes
and soil moisture, its relative utility for defining active-layer depth is uncertain. The
resolution of SMAP is also still too coarse to define landscape heterogeneity in condi-
tions influencing permafrost and soil organic carbon distributions (ideally, resolution
needs to be closer to 30 m than 3 km). Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite systems
are of high spatial resolution (~30 m) and widely used for ice monitoring, but they are
underutilized in the Arctic for land applications. Use of SAR and/or Interferometric Syn-
thetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) techniques for soil moisture and active layer retrieval,
assessment of carbon stocks, permafrost deformation, and other needs in the Arctic
have been demonstrated to have great potential but require further research and de-
velopment for widespread application. Changes in the Arctic terrestrial ecosystem will
be assessed in the Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiment (NGEE): Arctic Landscapes
project, in which data from satellite-based laser altimeters will be combined with
140

biogeochemical models. Monitoring and changes in the high northern latitudes will
also be assessed in NASAs Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE), a major field
campaign scheduled to begin in 2015 and run for 5 to 7 years over Western Canada
and Alaska. For a more detailed discussion of remote sensing tools for understanding
permafrost, see (NRC, 2014a).
Atmospheric boundary layer. The strong near-surface inversions under a frequently
overcast sky cover present a particularly difficult challenge to satellite sounding
systems, yet knowledge of boundary-layer stratification is essential for determining
surface-atmosphere exchanges. Higher spectral resolution systems such as NASAs
Atmospheric Infrared Radiation Sounder (AIRS) combined with the Advanced Micro-
wave Sounding Unit (AMSU) have the potential to provide more accurate retrievals of
profiles and cloud information in the critical Arctic boundary layer.
Cloud properties. Estimates of cloud optical thickness, phase, and base height
particularly over ice- and snow-covered surfacesrequire additional detail and
accuracy. Improved retrievals may be possible from AIRS/AMSU, MISR, GLAS/ICESat,
ICESat-2/ATLAS, and instruments in NASAs A-Train constellation. Cloud information
is essential for determining the surface energy balance and atmospheric chemical
processes.
Sea ice motion. A near-real-time, high-resolution product is needed for assimilation
into dynamical models to provide more accurate sea ice predictions. Coverage for
such a product is a challenge, particularly for optical systems, and may require a con-
stellation of satellites. The new Sentinel-1 SAR satellite mission will provide high repeat
coverage of the Arctic allowing more frequent information on sea ice, including ice
motion.
Repeatable landcover mapping techniques at high spatial resolution. High-resolution
(30 m or less) circumpolar land-cover maps are needed as baseline, to detect changes
and to aid modeling. Current maps are either geographically limited, are of low spatial
resolution, or lack accuracy because ground control is limited. The National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency (NGA) high resolution database may be useful for this purpose, as
may multi-sensor approaches that include Landsat, SAR, LIDAR, hyperspectral observa-
tions, and other satellite data sources.
Digital Elevation Models, ground surface height and geodetic control. Arctic land areas
(including ice-covered) currently have poor-resolution Digital Elevation Models (DEMs;
60 to 90 m). High-resolution DEMs are necessary for improved modeling, geospatial
analysis, and remote sensing analysis. In Alaska, the State Digital Mapping Initiative is
a program using airborne interferometric SAR to produce high-resolution DEMs and
141

FIGURE 4.5 Alaska Mapped digital elevation model. SOURCE: alaskamapped.org.
imagery (e.g., SPOT) to produce ortho images for mapping16 (Figure 4.5). The NGA pro-
vides access to data at no charge to civilian agencies. For example, 2.5 million scenes
over the Arctic and Antarctic of commercial submeter imagery have been collected
by NGA and are currently being used by the Polar Geospatial Center in Minnesota to
create DEMs at 2 to10 m resolution for portions of Antarctica. Such data could be used
to map the pan-Arctic.
Measurements relative to a stable datum would enable measurement of seasonal
variations of surface elevation dynamics and long-term subsidence associated with
degradation of ground ice. This could possibly be incorporated with NOAAs National
Geodetic Survey (NGS) of the national Continuously Operating Reference Station
(CORS) network. These are highly accurate Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS,
formerly GPS) receivers. Installation of a small subset of foundation CORS in the Arctic
16 See http://www.alaskamapped.org.
142

is needed to supplement the network. The foundation CORS will improve the accuracy
of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame.
The Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum, or GRAV-D, is a pro-
gram initiated by NGS to redefine the vertical datum of the United States. NGS is
prioritizing collection of airborne gravity data in Alaska. This is the most cost-effective
way to establish geodetic control in these areas and will allow the increase of eleva-
tion measurement accuracy from 1 meter (or worse) to 2 centimeters. Less than 10
percent of Alaska has contemporary shoreline data, and less than 1 percent is mapped
annually. This program needs to be expanded to the pan-Arctic.
Improved weather and sea condition forecasts. New observing technologies (in situ,
airborne, and satellite) could help to fill existing gaps in meteorological and oceano-
graphic datasets and improve weather forecasts. Beyond approximately 60 to 72
hours, forecasts of weather and sea conditions lack sufficient detail. The resolution of
the observational fields that support both meteorological and oceanographic model-
ing exacerbates this discrepancy (see Chapter 3, Emerging Question M4.)
In addition, there are some infrastructure needs to aid in sharing and dissemination of
imagery and sensor data. An autonomous network to uplink and disseminate multi-
sensor information about sea ice and other Arctic data is needed.
There is also a need to improve access to satellite imagery, including access to foreign
satellite observations and commercial data.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
In gathering community input for this study, a frequently identified technology that
would facilitate Arctic research was unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drone aircraft.
The Arctic is a remote and challenging region to conduct research. In addition to ex-
treme weather/sea conditions and transportation obstacles during much of the year,
the Arctic consists of large expanses of sparsely populated areas with limited access
that combine to make environmental observations difficult at best. As a result, aircraft
ranging from balloons to transport airplanes have long been an important tool for
the collection of observations on the physical, chemical, and biological systems of the
Arctic.
Although manned aircraft have the capacity to afford access to broad and remote
areas of the Arctic, this access is not without significant peril. With extremely limited
infrastructure for emergency alternatives or rescue in the case of failure, manned aerial
operations are rightly approached with caution. In recent years, reduced tolerance for
143

risk on the part of investigative agencies and the private sector have increasingly re-
stricted aerial access to remote areas and limited the scope and scale of data acquired.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s the rapid development and utilization of UAVs
by the military provided the possibility of new capabilities for aerial operations in re-
mote areas with challenging flying conditions. The UAV industry now includes options
ranging from small hand-launched line-of-sight operated craft to large airframes that
are capable of extensive periods aloft and long-distance operation.
Emerging UAV capability has the potential to greatly expand and extend our ability
to collect information in the challenging and remote conditions of the Arctic. To date
the use of UAVs in U.S. airspace, including the Arctic onshore and offshore, has been
somewhat limited as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) works to maintain the
safety of airspace and resolve the potential for interactions between manned and
unmanned air traffic. In addition to obtaining certification for the specific aircraft to
be used, operators of UAVs are required to obtain a certificate of authorization (COA)
from the FAA that establishes the airspace and operating parameters under which the
vehicle can be operated. Generally, the airspace available to UAV operation has been
limited to designated areas of controlled airspace, as in military reserves or testing
ranges. COAs have not been broadly available to the private sector and have been
limited to governmental entities with aviation responsibilities, including a handful of
universities with established aviation research programs. In the relatively rare cases
where private-sector use of a UAV has been possible, it has been through the estab-
lishment of a relationship with and sponsorship by one of the governmental bodies
or universities. Acquisition of COAs over the last 5 years has required as much as 10
to 12 months from the initiation of the process. More recently, processing times have
trended toward 6 months.
Despite these obstacles, the use of UAVs for data acquisition in the Arctic has been ad-
vancing. In 2008, a UAV was tested for the purpose of making observations of marine
mammals in the Arctic by being launched and recovered from a vessel at sea. In 2012,
small UAVs assisted an icebreaker in its effort to provide access for the delivery of fuel
to the village of Nome, Alaska. In 2013, experimental UAVs were successfully launched
and operated from controlled airspace near Oliktok Point, Alaska, and were tested suc-
cessfully in the Chukchi Sea.
On December 30, 2013, the FAA announced an initiative to greatly increase the level
of access to experimental use of UAVs.17 Though this initiative will not immediately
provide access to the national airspace for commercial and civil purposes, the program
17 See http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=15575.
144

will generate data and information related to safe operation of UAVs. Six investiga-
tive entities have been selected to operate UAV test sites. These include University of
Alaska, State of Nevada, New Yorks Griffiss International Airport, North Dakota De-
partment of Commerce, Texas A&M University, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University (Virginia Tech). Through this program, the agency has set in motion a
process that will result in the establishment of operational standards and capacities
within the coming years.
Sensors
Observing platforms are effective only when equipped with sensors that measure
critical variables. It is particularly important to measure parameters that describe feed-
backs among system components (e.g., albedo and ocean temperature).
Improvements in sensor technology would (1) increase the numbers and types of
autonomous measurements, particularly biological and chemical characteristics, (2)
miniaturize sensors and sensor vehicles, (3) increase data transfer capabilities from re-
mote installations to the laboratory, (4) enable deployment of sensors that can collect
high-quality data during all seasons (including winter), and (5) decrease sensor power
consumption.
Examples of new sensor types and technologies that need improvement for Arctic
deployment include:
Underwater, airborne, and terrestrial still and video cameras;
Chemical sensors for nutrients, pH, pCO2, CH4, and other dissolved gases;
Bottom-pressure recorders for tides, storm surges, and tsunamis;
Sensors to measure sea ice thickness;
Sensors for identifying organisms using molecular techniques; and
Telemetry instruments (low-power, small, inexpensive, fast).
Integrated suites of new instruments would allow sensors to be programmed for
event detection, responses to seasonal changes, or alterations of data capture rates
based on ecosystem processes. Integrative technologies use smart sensors that can
react to external communication. A network of smart sensors could be autonomously
coordinated over a wide range of platforms, for example, among fixed, ocean drifting,
and autonomous underwater and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Accurate and reliable monitoring of key variables in remote locations and under
harsh environmental conditions requires development of robust and inexpensive
new sensor technology to provide the density of measurements needed to validate
145

spatially distributed models. It is important to ensure that instrumentation to be

deployed for operation at remote field sites has passed a thorough pre-deployment
testing process, including environmental testing, and has been developed to enable
module-level serviceability and remote calibration. It may be necessary to adopt more
formal approaches such as those practiced by industry and other agencies for testing
and evaluation of new systems and technologies and to formalize the assessment of
technological readiness of new equipment and processes. Sensors need to be easy to
use and install, autonomous, and with remote data transfer to cover vast parts of the
Arctic where no data currently exist. Maximizing the value of independent sensor data
distributed across a wide geographic area in a range of terrains (oceans, land, coast,
continental ice, and sea ice), requires robust data capture, archiving, access, visualiza-
tion, and integration. Sensor data collection is an area of increasing innovation. For
example, most cars and smartphones are now miniature weather stations. Most new
cars have temperature sensors, and windshield-wiper speed can be a crude mea-
sure of precipitation rate (NRC, 2009). In the data-sparse Arctic, accessing data from
these sources could make a large contribution, and cars and smartphones provide an
example of how we need to be open to new and unusual methods of data collection.
New and emerging sensor data can be fused with visual sensors data (e.g., acoustics,
video imagery, photogrammetry, satellite imagery) to yield data products that can en-
able profoundly new insights about this rapidly changing region.
Additionally, at present there are many important components of the Arctic system
that are under-measured due to logistical or technical constraints (e.g., Executive Of-
fice of the President, 2013). These include:
Coordinated measurements of full energy and mass budgets on scales that
resolve seasonality and synoptic variability, including development of new
methods to measure radiation fluxes and monitor upper ocean heat and mass
balance changes while integrating over spatiotemporal variability;
Long-term observations of key outlet glaciers and tidewater glaciers;
Monitoring of the biological and physical state of the Arctic environment
in concert with quantitative measurements of human interactions with the
environment;
Assessing the effects of clouds and atmospheric constituents on surface radia-
tion balance; and
Quantifying the impact of terrestrial warming and permafrost thawing on the
carbon cycle.
146

Power and Communication
All of the technologiesexisting and envisioned, mobile and fixedfor remote mea-
surement of changes in Arctic systems require some source of energy, and power is
still a limiting factor in many cases. In addition, the large quantities of data generated
by these remote instruments and systems will need robust and inexpensive telemetry
systems for transmission of data. Preparing for the transmission of big data is neces-
sary as we move into the most intensive observational period the Arctic has ever seen,
including high-bandwidth observations such as real-time video feeds.
Power
There are several excellent examples of solutions to the remote power problem
already in existence. For smaller power requirements, the Ch2MHill polar power
website18 has been funded by NSF to be a clearinghouse for information on polar
power systems in remote environments. For lower power requirements, UNAVCO has
developed a small (5-W continuous power) system based on photovoltaic (PV) pan-
els and an optional wind turbine.19 For the larger power requirements, such as for a
shore-based High Frequency Radar, Statscewich and Weingartner (2012) developed
a Remote Power Module (RPM), integrating PV, wind turbines, and a diesel generator,
along with batteries for storage and the required control and switching circuitry. At
the largest scale of operation, for example, Summit Station at the center of the GrIS or
Toolik Field Station in Alaska, diesel generators are still needed to produce the neces-
sary 80 to 170 kW.
Two key challenges remain in developing systems for future research questions:
Developing cleaner solutions for the large-power-requirement stations.
Distributing power from where it can be generated cleanly to where it is
needed.
More robust and affordable clean energy sources and improved energy storage
systems are essential to meet the data collection and transmission needs discussed
elsewhere in this chapter. This is evidenced, particularly at Summit Station, Greenland.
Ironically, one of the most pristine sites in the Polar Regions, a location used largely for
its clean atmospheric conditions, is powered primarily by a diesel generator running
18 See http://www.polarpower.org/.
19 See http://facility.unavco.org/project_support/polar/remote/remote.html.
147

continuously. Major enhancements to the value of Summit as a facility could be real-

ized by effectively replacing the diesel generator power with renewable, clean energy
sources. It is likely that the technology for overcoming this challenge already exists,
and the major impediment is cost.
Many locations in the Arctic are ideal for using renewable energy to generate power,
and distributing that power is a key way to realize the benefits of such conditions.
Related to the idea of power distribution hubs is the idea of using power where it is
generated and moving the products of that power (perhaps manufactured goods, or
energy-dense material such as hydrogen), as opposed to moving the energy itself.
Another idea is reducing the energy consumption of the instruments themselves,
many of which were designed for laboratories where power is not an issue. These
instruments are often now deployed in remote locations, where power consumption
is one of the biggest limiting factors. Moving forward, large gains may be made by
focusing effort on designing instruments to consume less power, as an alternative to
developing higher-output power systems.
Broadband Communication
Broadband communication systems are vital for research activities (e.g., delivery of
sensor network data and environmental monitoring) in the Arctic, are central to north-
ern communities ability to adapt to climate change, and are important for monitoring
and managing the expected increase in economic and industrial activity in the Arctic
region. For example, it is well recognized that a robust and reliable high-bandwidth
network is essential for fisheries management, weather forecasting, energy explora-
tion and production, search and rescue, and expanding ship traffic. Broadband com-
munication would also contribute to a paradigm shift in education and telemedicine
in the Arctic region.
The coverage of geostationary satellites, which provide a robust marine communica-
tion system, is limited to approximately 70 degrees north. An example of technology
that could provide communications is being proposed by Canada. The Government of
Canada is currently developing a polar communications and weather mission (PCW)
with international collaborations that currently includes Denmark, Finland, Norway,
Sweden, and the United States (Figure 4.6). The proposed mission comprises two satel-
lites operating in highly elliptical orbits with a weather payload (spectroradiometer),
space weather instruments, and Ka- and X-band telecommunications.
148

FIGURE 4.6 This image illustrates the areas of interest for the polar communications and weather mission
(PCW) in the Arctic. SOURCE: Canadian Space Agency.
Partially in response to the 2011 Arctic Communications Infrastructure Assessment

Report,20 commercial endeavors have been proposed to install a high-bandwidth
telecommunications cable from London to Tokyo through the Northwest Passage and
along the Alaska coast. The proposal includes thirteen spur cables that would connect
to Arctic Ocean coastal communities in Alaska and Canada.
20 See www.aciareport.ca.
149

This committee cannot and does not endorse any specific proposal, but because of
the urgent need for communications in the Arctic as well as the challenges and re-
sources involved, it would be prudent to pursue a partnership model including other
Arctic nations and industry to enable the implementation of these technologies.
Models in Prediction, Projection, and Reanalyses
Computational approaches to understanding the Arctic system remain central to

developing capacity in understanding mechanisms, diagnosing change, ensuring safe
field operations, and improving climate change projections. In all of these aspects,
the Arctic presents unique challenges. For example, large biases in simulations of the
Arctic climate by global climate system models, particularly at high elevations, over
ice sheets, and in the marginal sea ice zone, illustrate the fact that modeling capabil-
ity in this region lags behind that in lower latitudes. Some of these challenges can be
ascribed to limitations in our observational capacity. Some problems can be under-
stood as biases originating from inadequately understood processes in lower lati-
tudes. However, in most respects, we face a combination of sparse and noisy data with
inadequate understanding of Arctic processes for the purposes of simulation (Kattsov
et al., 2010). Further, the difficulties described above in maintaining robust, continuous,
high-quality, distributed observations increase our reliance on models of all kinds as
tools for understanding the Arctic.
At present, the capability to reproduce observed Arctic amplification and project its
effects into the coming decades continues to elude us. This is manifest in the biases in
integrative signals such as regional and temporal variability on a range of scales in the
atmosphere, sea ice, ocean, and land (e.g., Notz et al., 2013; Stroeve et al., 2012). Spe-
cific challenges include the simulation of critical processes, including, for example, the
interaction between liquid- and ice-phase microphysics (Klein et al., 2009), precipita-
tion amount and phase (de Boer et al., 2014), glacial melt (Irvine-Fynn et al., 2014), sea
ice albedo (Karlsson and Svensson, 2013) and soil freeze/thaw dynamics (Rawlins et al.,
2013). These challenges present opportunities for detailed analysis of field observa-
tions in concert with targeted simulation (e.g., single-column models, cloud-resolving
models, sea ice models, watershed models) that enhance our understanding of these
key processes (e.g., Luo et al., 2008; Morrison et al., 2005). The benefits to climate model
improvement arising from coordinated field programs (e.g., DOE Atmospheric Radia-
tion Measurement [ARM], the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic [SHEBA] program)
that include the measurement of key parameters for simulation cannot be overstated.
Atmospheric reanalyses (e.g., Dee et al., 2011; Onogi et al., 2007; Saha et al., 2010) are
an important tool for a range of Arctic research activities, including applications as
150

diverse as detection of climate change, impacts assessment, and component model

development. However, in the context of both data scarcity and model bias, the ability
of data assimilation techniques to provide a resource for these activities is limited.
Even the current generation of reanalysis products reveals large inter-model differ-
ences, particularly in surface meteorology, clouds, and radiation (Jakobson et al., 2012).
Quality operational weather forecasts are critical for safe operations in the Arctic.
Generally these models are adapted from national operational weather prediction
models of Arctic nations, but research has demonstrated that these models require
substantial modification to reduce bias (e.g., Bromwich et al., 2009; Schroder et al.,
2011). Enhancement of the reanalysis process (including specialized Arctic regional re-
analyses) and operational weather prediction will rely on the continuing improvement
in understanding Arctic atmospheric processes and their interactions with other Arctic
systems.
The ongoing development of limited-area climate system models in the Arctic rep-
resents a critical gap in our modeling infrastructure (Proshutinsky et al., 2008). These
models allow the testing of our simulation understanding in a framework that has
high spatial resolution, uses Arctic-specific physical representations, and ensures that
lower-latitude biases are minimized. Although this approach enjoyed considerable
advances in earlier decades (e.g., Dethloff et al., 1996; Lynch et al., 1995), development
slowed until recently (e.g., Cassano et al., 2011; Dorn et al., 2009; Glisan et al., 2013).
These models provide an important platform for testing approaches prior to imple-
mentation in global models, as well as providing additional infrastructure for impacts
assessment, downscaling, and field campaign support.
Partnerships with Industry
Building the operational capacity necessary to address emerging research ques-

tions requires a mix of approaches, including partnering to leverage resources. With
increased accessibility comes increased activity on the part of tourism, shipping, oil
and gas, and other extractive industries. Many of these industries operate extensive
investigative and infrastructure development programs. Frequently, the information
needs for industry have much in common with the needs of regulatory agencies and
curiosity-driven science. When industry operates in remote locations, it also tends to
establish or create infrastructure to support safe operations, including housing, trans-
portation, communications, and crisis response capabilities (e.g., search and rescue).
Establishing partnerships with these organizations could allow for collection of infor-
mation that would, in turn, facilitate robust decision making and extend capacities for
scientific investigations in the Arctic.
151

There are many ways in which collaborations with industry can generate mutual ben-
efits and synergies with the science community. At the most basic level, instrumenta-
tion of existing industry installations (i.e., ships, platforms, and facilities) operating in
the Arctic can allow for collection of data. Industry is often open to allowing investiga-
tors to utilize logistical assets, provided that the investigative work is consistent with
the mission of such assets and can be conducted in full compliance with industry stan-
dards. The private sector is also beginning to lead funding for scientific investigation in
the Arctic (see Investing in Research later in this chapter). Although a portion of these
funded studies is directly operated by, or on behalf of, industry, opportunities exist to
co-fund investigative efforts through matching funds or the inclusion of industry in
such programs as the National Ocean Partnership Program.
Industry-funded science can also be a rich source of information that could be more
effectively tapped by the scientific or regulatory communities. Recognition of the
utility of scientific information as a business driver is increasing the extent and quality
of industry investment and willingness to participate in greater publicprivate-sector
collaboration. Whereas industry science may be focused on specific impacts-related
questions or project-specific areas, data from these studies can inform a broad array of
research inquiries. Measures that increase transparency and inclusion in the planning
and implementation of industry studies, the peer review and validation of results and
reports, and broad sharing and utilization of industry data, all increase the value of this
science both to the scientific community and to industry itself.
Examples of effective publicprivate collaboration on Arctic science are increasing. An
excellent example of utilizing industry assets as observation platforms is the Smart
Ocean Smart Industries program under the World Ocean Council (WOC). Through this
program the WOC, which is an international, cross-sectoral industry leadership alliance,
works with the scientific community to identify data needs and mechanisms through
which these data may be collected either directly by vessel crews or through the
deployment of instrumentation onto industry assets. NOAA also operates the Volun-
teer Observing Ship21 program for collecting a standard set of weather observations
daily from more than 1,000 ships and platforms globally for incorporation in weather
forecasting models.
A 2010 agreement on data sharing between three international oil companies (Shell,
ConocoPhillips, and Statoil) and NOAA has made the results of a nearly $100 million in-
vestment in data on the U.S. Arctic offshore available to the agency and, more broadly,
to the scientific community. Under this agreement, data from meteorology/oceanog-
21 See http://www.vos.noaa.gov.
152

raphy observing buoys are served directly to the National Data Buoy Center and are
utilized to improve forecasting in the Arctic. Data from integrated ecological studies
and monitoring programs are made available through the Alaska Ocean Observing
System.22
Investigators frequently establish ad hoc public-private collaborations by soliciting
matching funds, or by combining privately funded opportunities with publicly funded
initiatives. Such informal pooling of funding can increase the scope and utility of pub-
licly funded projects by accommodating the utilization of a larger, more capable vessel
or adding scientists to the program. Formal public-private collaborations are becom-
ing more common as both communities find new strategies for co-planning investiga-
tive efforts and for co-funding research.
GROWING HUMAN CAPACITY
An essential element of ensuring that the nation has sufficient research capacity is
an adequate supply of people with a unique combination of the necessary skills and
knowledge. Arctic questions span many disciplines across the natural and social sci-
ences and thus require some researchers who work at the intersections, crossing and
connecting fields and collaborating across international boundaries. Also, research
capacity in the Arctic is particularly important because climate change and its impacts
are occurring at an accelerated rate. Thus, our capacity to observe and conduct re-
search to understand the observations, and develop appropriate response strategies,
needs to keep pace. Building human research capacity includes both training of the
next generation and engagement and professional development of the existing com-
munity so that we are better prepared to address current and future challenges.
Human research capacity building was a major component of the International Polar
Year (IPY). The National Academy of Sciences study on Lessons and Legacies of the Inter-
national Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 showed that there were measurable increases in the
number of scientists conducting polar research (NRC, 2012a). This increase was attrib-
uted not only to the climate-change-driven need for more polar researchers but also
to IPYs efforts that enabled international research teams to closely coordinate their
activities. Two specific human-capacity-building activities deemed successful during
IPY were the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS) and the growth in
student participation in the University of the Arctic.
The APECS coordination office is currently funded by three Norwegian organizations.
22 See http://www.aoos.org/.
153

Other organizations that work with APECS, formed to support early career scientists in
specific disciplines, include:
Permafrost Young Researcher Network (PYRN)
Young Earth Scientists (YES) Network
ArcticNet Student Association (ASA)
Young European Associated Researchers (YEAR)
Young Earth System Scientists (YESS)
World Association of Young Scientists (WAYS)
European Geography Association for students and young geographers (EGEA)
Increased support and funding agency incentives for U.S. young scientists to engage
in APECSs activities would contribute to growing Arctic research capacity.
The University of the Arctic has a range of programs distributed among and coor-
dinated with member higher education institutions that enable building of Arctic
human research capacity with important emphasis on the recruitment and involve-
ment of Arctic peoples. As of 2013, the United States had the lowest student involve-
ment in their northern engagement program. Supporting U.S. students (including
recruits from northern communities) in the University of the Arctic has the potential
to increase human capacity through their established and well-recognized programs.
Another key aspect of human capacity building is training young scientists, particu-
larly social scientists, in the linguistic and cultural competency skills for working across
the Arctic. Training centers in other parts of the Arctic could serve as models for North
America.
Other IPY human-capacity-building successes were related to funding agency incen-
tives for researchers to incorporate northern community engagement in research and
as public outreach. Some of these success stories included expansion from academic
outreach to include informal education venues (e.g., museums, science fairs, online
broadcasts). Continuing funding agency mechanisms that encourage these activities
would provide young Arctic residents an opportunity to see research career opportu-
nities directly linked to the future of their own communities.
Community Engagement
Arctic residents have played important roles in research for over a century, and their
involvement continues to increase. From providing logistical support and safety in
the field, to offering insights from generations of observations and experience, Arctic
peoples have a great deal to offer. They also have a great deal to gain from sound sci-
154

entific research, which can address many challenges of rapid environmental and social
change in the region. Effective research partnerships have led to major advances in
marine mammalogy (e.g., Noongwook et al., 2007; Thewissen et al., 2011) and meteo-
rology (e.g., Weatherhead et al., 2010), the emergence of traditional knowledge as an
important topic of study (e.g., Huntington, 2011), and an increase in the number of sci-
entists and scholars who come from Arctic communities. Arctic researchers, similarly,
are increasingly interested in making connections with Arctic residents to incorporate
traditional knowledge and observations and also to share the results of their work
(Figure 4.7).
These trends are encouraging, and yet the Arctic research community has only be-
gun to tap the potential for involving Arctic residents as well as citizen science prac-
titioners who do not live in the Arctic but are still interested in Arctic topics. Arctic
residents are alone in observing their environment throughout the entire year, year
after year. They all have a lifetime of knowledge from their own observations as well
FIGURE 4.7 Warren Matumeak (left) and Andy Mahoney (right) discussing sea ice conditions near Barrow
while examining a satellite image. SOURCE: Henry Huntington.
155

as what has been passed down by older relatives, a chain that extends back countless
generations in indigenous communities. Few of these contemporary and traditional
observations and insights are recorded or made available to others, leaving many
potential connections unrealized. The power of entraining large numbers of people
in addressing research questions or data analyses (e.g., crowd sourcing) has yet to be
applied to Arctic research to any substantial degree. There are promising develop-
ments in all these areas (e.g., Alessa et al., 2013), but the wider application of successful
approaches has not yet occurred.
Three areas are particularly ripe for further attention to increase meaningful engage-
ment of Arctic communities. First, communities themselves need to determine how
they want to be engaged. The research burden on Arctic residents can be high, for ex-
ample, as in being interviewed again and again in the course of different studies with
similar objectives. The return of scientific information back to the communities is not
always effective. And communities are not always involved in all phases of research,
reducing the value of their participation as well as their ownership and/or partnership.
At the same time, few individual research projects have the resources to address all
aspects of community interest and opportunity, creating a need for other mechanisms
to support community engagement on the communitys own terms.
Second, the infrastructure to support community engagement is only now being
developed on a larger scale than that of individual projects or, in a few cases, regions
of the Arctic. Such infrastructure includes data management, to capture and make
available the results of community efforts, as well as communication procedures that
can help researchers connect with communities as they plan, conduct, and dissemi-
nate the results of their research. Ad hoc approaches have worked for some projects
and individuals, but many opportunities have also been missed, especially for building
beyond the activities of a single project. The same principle applies to enhancing the
capacity of communities to engage in Arctic research. Various Alaska Native organiza-
tions have played important roles in this regard, but greater continuity of effort and
connections among projects and practitioners can yield even better results.
Third, there has simply been too little experience to date with the various approaches
that have been and can be used, limiting the utility of an evaluation of what works and
what doesnt. More needs to be done, engaging more communities on more topics,
to build up a better body of practice and experience, from which relevant lessons can
be drawn. More experience will also help community aspirations and capacity grow
and mature, likely creating greater demand for community engagement along with a
greater sophistication in how to make use of research activities and results.
156

INVESTING IN RESEARCH
Research requires funding. Funding involves making decisions, which includes con-
sidering what is needed, what is likely to work, and what trade-offs are entailed. Most
Arctic research funding in the United States comes from government agencies, rang-
ing from studies intended to address the needs of regulatory and other decisions, to
curiosity-driven research within broad areas of scientific interest. Additional research,
typically addressing specific needs or goals, is funded by the private sector, including
industry as well as philanthropic groups. Decisions about what is funded therefore oc-
cur at many levels in many places. Nonetheless, some general patterns are evident, and
societys ability to address emerging research questions in the Arctic is closely tied to
the way research funding is organized.
Evaluating the strengths and drawbacks of current funding mechanisms for Arctic
science in the United States is beyond the scope of this report. Instead, we draw
attention to certain features of research funding and suggest a closer look at
whether the current approach is optimal for addressing societys needs. We focus
our discussion in six areas: comprehensive systems and synthesis research, funding
non-steady-state research, social sciences and human capacity, stakeholder-initiated
research, international funding cooperation, and long-term observations. We con-
sider cooperation among countries, among agencies, across disciplines, and with the
private sector.
Comprehensive Systems and Synthesis Research
Research is often proposed in response to a request for proposals and then carried out
over a 3- to 5-year time frame. Successful research may lead to subsequent projects
that build on the results from the initial project, but there is no guarantee of further
funding. Most projects are proposed and run independently, only rarely with support
for coordination with related initiatives. This system provides flexibility, in that fund-
ing streams are committed for a relatively short period and in that researchers have
the ability to pursue topics they deem important and, often, to adjust their research as
circumstances and preliminary findings warrant. At the same time, implementation of
full programs and deep engagement with and the ability to explore the wider con-
nections or ramifications of a particular topic are often limited within a 5-year project.
Similarly, the ability to coordinate and cooperate across projects may be curtailed by
time as well as by the demands of producing individual project results and then the
competitive aspects of seeking further funding.
157

These drawbacks are especially apparent when trying to grapple with a compre-
hensive view of the Arctic, encompassing its myriad components, each with its own
complexity. The challenges of systems research and interdisciplinary collaborations
are well known. How those challenges can be overcome is less apparent, but conti-
nuity, coordination, and leadership are likely to play major roles. Other funding ap-
proaches are used in other countries, and some innovative approaches have been
tried in the United States in recent years. For example, long-term projects under the
leadership of scientists with strong records of accomplishment and collaboration have
been funded elsewhere. The part of the Bering Sea Project (Wiese et al., 2012) that was
funded by the North Pacific Research Board was organized as a single project with
one principal investigator, rather than as a collection of individual projects, in order to
emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration and a high degree of integration of ecosys-
tem understanding. Integrated and cross-disciplinary proposals could also be devel-
oped through the National Science Foundations new option for program managers
to handle proposals through an Ideas Lab model.23 A request for participation in the
Ideas Lab is announced. Interested participants are invited to submit an application
that outlines their ideas on a specific Ideas Lab topic. Selected participants will attend
an interactive, multi-day program of collaborative discussion to construct new ideas
and approaches. Subsets of teams will then submit full integrated proposals. Another
way to integrate projects is to announce at the outset that the intent is to support
a balanced suite and also support a coordinating office, as NSF did with the Climate
Change Education Partnership program.
Synthesis activities, similarly, are often challenging in that they lack the allure of new
field research. In some cases, the rationale for investing in synthesis is not readily artic-
ulated before the synthesis activity has started but only emerges from the interactions
of those involved and the interpretation of the various streams of data and insight
that are to be connected in the course of the synthesis. Some examples exist, such as
efforts under the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program in the
1970s and 1980s, synthesis workshops undertaken by NSFs Arctic System Science
Program (e.g., Overpeck et al., 2005), the NSFs and the North Pacific Research Boards
Bering Sea Project (Wiese et al., 2012), NSFs Arctic Freshwater Integration project,24
and recent efforts for U.S. Arctic waters (e.g., the Pacific Marine Arctic Regional Synthe-
sis [PacMARS] and the Synthesis of Arctic Research [SOAR] programs), but these are
the exceptions rather than the norm.
Because of the funding structures and norms, there is currently an imbalance, with
23 See http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14033/nsf14033.jsp?WT.mc_id=USNSF_179.
24 See http://www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2010/1/article/896.
158

most research initiated by individuals and small groups, and few resources directed
toward larger-scale synthetic thinking and study. Other countries have different ways
of handling synthesis research, including making large-scale and longer-term invest-
ments. Some invest in training of reviewers, so that they are better able to handle
interdisciplinary and integrative proposals. The extent to which various approaches
work and the trade-offs that they entail (e.g., opportunities for young researchers
vs. continuation for established researchers) require careful evaluation to determine
whether they do in fact produce a better comprehensive understanding of the re-
search area in question, and at what cost. If so, then new funding approaches could
be considered by U.S. agencies in light of their specific missions for Arctic research, to
ensure the maximum benefit for society from its investment.
Non-Steady-State Research
Understanding an Arctic in transition may require greater risk on the part of funding
agencies and a greater acceptance of uncertainty on the part of reviewers to make
headway against an uncertain future. Funding non-steady-state research will be
necessary to better understand the dynamics of thresholds, resilience, and transfor-
mation in a rapidly changing Arctic. Obtaining funding for research into steady-state
processes can sometimes be more straightforward than funding non-steady-state
research, as steady-state proposals can provide convincing evidence of feasibility.
However, given the potential for nonlinear change, tipping points, and emergent
properties, it is important to ensure that investigations of emerging, non-steady-state
research questions are funded as well, even if that means greater willingness on be-
half of the funding agencies to take risks. Alternative approaches to proposal review
and decision making could be utilized, along with locally inspired social-ecological
experiments.
Social Sciences and Human Capacity
In titling this report The Arctic in the Anthropocene, the committee intended to draw
attention to the central role of humans in the emerging research questions. There are
pressing needs for social science research as identified in Chapter 3 and for recogni-
tion of the role people play in research infrastructure, discussed earlier in this chapter.
Support for the social sciences, including economic, behavioral, and decision research,
has lagged behind that of the natural sciences. As we attempt to prepare ourselves,
our communities, and our country for a more rapidly changing future (IPCC, 2014),
159

investments in social science are more critical than ever. Many of the questions we
have identified in this report have at least some connection with the social sciences
(Figure 3.18b).
In addition to conducting the research, ultimately it is people who are central in
enhancing cooperation and coordination, sustaining long-term observations, man-
aging and sharing information, building and maintaining operational capacity, and
providing the capacity to meet the challenges. The committee heard from many in
the community who had stepped in to fill gaps but were not supported in doing so
and were stretched thin in responding to multiple demands forced by the rapid pace
of change. To do this, people have to be engaged, trained, retrained, and supported so
that we have the requisite expertise, provide for follow-through in research infrastruc-
ture, operations, and administration, and can rapidly respond to new ideas and fresh
perspectives.
Stakeholder-Initiated Research
Critical questions are emerging from stakeholders, including decision makers and
communities, that are not traditional participants in federal research (things we think
we dont know). There is not currently a consensus within the research community that
this type of research is important, so it is less likely to rise to the top during proposal
reviews and funding decisionswhat we know we need to know will often take prece-
dence over what we think we dont know.
An evaluation of how current funding mechanisms affect the ability of nontraditional
research organizations to participate in Arctic research is needed (see also the Inter-
sectoral subsection under Enhancing Cooperation and the Growing Human Capac-
ity section earlier in this chapter). Approaches used by other agencies, regions, and
countries are worth considering applying to the Arctic.
International Funding Cooperation
A major barrier to international collaboration is the nature of the present framework

for funding basic research. International collaborations can by stymied by failure to
obtain funding approval from agencies in more than one country. Most nations have a
national funding organization that is constrained by unique rules and guidelines that
rarely accommodate multinational proposals. This somewhat arbitrary limitation im-
pedes true international collaboration. Peer review of proposals also lacks consistent
guidelines internationally, and proposal target dates are not synchronized. There are
160

few official channels (e.g., Belmont Forum25) through which program managers can
communicate internationally to set common research goals. Removing these barriers
to efficient international collaboration requires long-term, sustained commitments
from national funding agencies, as well as the development of policies that serve the
interests of both national funding agencies and the scientific community. An Arctic
activity is forthcoming from the Belmont Forum, which is a welcome first step, but
a long-term sustained program supporting international collaboration would yield
many additional benefits.
Global leaders are beginning to recognize the importance of cooperation in the Arctic.
For example, in August 2013, the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS reported that:
Japan believes there is a strong need to conduct continuous monitoring and research in the
Arctic, in particular, in connection with global climate change, Hakubun Shimomura [minister of
education, culture, sports, science and technology] continued. In view of the fact that Russia is
a country to which the largest territory in the Arctic belongs, we consider cooperation with it as
absolutely necessary. In particular, we need to work together in the sphere of creating monitor-
ing stations in the Arctic, the use of the icebreaker fleet, exchange of experts and the general
expansion of research in this sphere. The minister said that a regular meeting of the Japanese-
Russian Joint Commission on Scientific and Technological Cooperation will be held in Tokyo
this September. It will exactly discuss further prospects for the development of interaction and
cooperation between the two countries in this part of the world. . . .We plan to put forward a
concrete proposal on Arctic research cooperation, in particular, with regard to cooperation in
the sphere of observation and personnel exchange, said the minister.
Long-Term Observations
Change can be detected only by observations over time. The precision by which
change can be measured depends on the consistency, frequency, and breadth of
those observations. At present, there are relatively few consistent, frequent, spatially
extensive datasets for the Arctic. Instead, we have a smattering of ad hoc stations,
incomplete time series, and varying methods. The Undetermined Arctic section in
25 TheBelmont Forum was established to overcome some funding challenges by advancing inter-
national collaboration in research through joint announcement of targeted programs: (1) strengthening
engagement between the research funding agencies and the academic research community as represented
by ICSU and (2) improving coordination of early phase engagement on GCR strategies and priorities in order
to improve co-design, co-alignment, and co-funding of major research programs (http://www.igfagcr.org/
index.php/challenge). The Forum requires each Collaborative Research Action to address the Belmont
Challenge: To deliver knowledge needed for action to avoid and adapt to detrimental environmental change
including extreme hazardous events. Belmont further requires consideration of human and natural systems
in each proposal, and a minimum of three nations involved in each project (http://www.climate-cryosphere.
org/news/clic-news/521-update-on-international-research-funding-from-the-belmont-forum).
161

Chapter 3 addressed the rationale for better long-term observations. Here we address
the implications for funding.
Consistent, system-wide observations over time require sustained support. Long-term
funding commitments, however, are rare. Furthermore, the payoff from long-term ob-
servations is typically time-delayed, making it easy to justify spending money on rela-
tively short-term research efforts that produce results in a few years rather than over
the course of decades. The result on the funding side is a patchwork of efforts that
have little coordination and thus exhibit little synergy, in that the monitoring of one
component in one location readily lends itself neither to detecting the connections
between that component and other parts of the system nor to evaluating the relation-
ship among trends observed in different locations. Complicating matters in the Arctic
is the fact that processes interconnect across national borders, requiring cooperative,
long-term international observations.
One alternative is the development of a coordinated program of long-term observa-
tions, designed not from individual interest or based on what proposal happened to
get funding but, rather, from a vision of understanding the system as a whole, and with
a sustained commitment to funding. Such an approach is the idea behind the interna-
tional Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) initiative and other efforts such
as the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program. Though meritorious, these efforts
are still largely a collection of ad hoc efforts, with funding dependent on those respon-
sible for each separate component of the overall network.
Our ability to detect change and to determine what new features of the Arctic system
are emerging is thus compromised and will remain so until there is a lasting com-
mitment to long-term observations. Because agency interests will always be focused
on specific missions or mandates, we need to explore how to put in place a network
backbone that provides continuity as well as disciplinary and regional breadth. This
network would serve to explore promising scientific approaches and generate new
findings while keeping track of key variables and indicators of change. Other activities,
such as more focused agency programs, would benefit because they could plug into
this network.
162


Photo credit: Matt Kennedy, Earth Vision Trust

CHAPTER FIVE
Building Knowledge and

Solving Problems
We want to understand the wonder of the world around us. We want to use what we
learn to improve our circumstances, to support human well-being and dignity. We
want to mitigate harmful impacts where possible and adapt as best we can to chang-
ing conditions. We want to anticipate what lies over the horizon so that we are better
prepared to meet future challenges (Box 5.1). All of these motivations apply to Arctic
research, as scientists study the inherent fascination of a rapidly changing region dom-
inated by ice in many forms and as society figures out how best to face the challenges
and pursue the opportunities emerging there.
Curiosity-driven research and problem-oriented research are often held up as com-
peting and even mutually exclusive approaches. This dichotomy is a reflection more
of agency funding priorities and mechanisms and less a fundamental property of the
research enterprise itself. In practice, and as demonstrated by the many examples de-
scribed in this report, our understanding of the Arctic benefits from both approaches,
and the ability to act on Arctic matters requires insights from all points on the research
spectrum. Because this dichotomy is misleading, we should not seek to identify an
optimal balance between research on fundamental questions versus that on specific,
urgent problems. It is more productive to think about the ways in which decision mak-
ers and communities can draw on the results of all types of research to find appropri-
ate paths for action as well as the innovative research that emerges when researchers
direct their inquiry toward what decision makers need to know.
Natural and social scientific study can provide an objective basis for developing a
common understanding of the phenomena and processes that define and shape the
Arctic. It has the potential to provide lines of evidence for making decisions about how
to live and work in the Arctic, recognizing that our knowledge will never be complete
but that using the best available information can support decisions that meet our
goals now while leaving us better prepared for, and resilient to, future shocks.
For all regions of the planet where accelerated impacts of climate change are occur-
ring, it is well recognized that, if action had been taken earlier to tackle global warm-
ing using the science available at that time, the results would likely have been differ-
ent, with more positive environmental outcomes. This lack of action strongly suggests
165

BOX 5.1 LAST SEA ICE REFUGE
The record-setting losses of sea ice in 2007 and 2012 resulted in widespread attention to
the question of when the Arctic will be ice free in summer. But a closer look at the model results
leads to an important finding: After most of the ice is lost, many projections show some sea ice
cover extending far into the latter half of this century. The modeled ice distributions (Figure)
project that this last remaining summer sea ice will be located north of Greenland and the Ca-
nadian Archipelago, in a region known as the last sea ice refuge or the last ice area (Pfirman et
al., 2009; Wang and Overland, 2009; WWF, 2012). Because winds drive winter ice into this region,
it is expected to continue having contiguous ice cover in summer for decades after sea ice is lost
throughout the rest of the Arctic. This means that polar bears, ringed seals, and other species
dependent on sea ice will likely find supportive habitat in this region throughout much of the
21st century (Durner et al., 2009; Kelly et al., 2010).
FIGURE Model projections of sea ice thickness when the Arctic is nearly ice free in September, within 30
years. Units for sea ice thickness are meters. SOURCE: Wang and Overland, 2009.
that the science-policy-practice link is broken (Weichselgartner and Marandino, 2012).

These authors point to a need to improve the ways in which science is used to develop
policies and other tools for managing marine environments, but this need also applies
to the Arctic. They also suggest that, in general, improving how science is translated to
knowledge, synthesizing existing local knowledge, and engaging regional communi-
ties to develop decision support systems are some of the important ways in which this
broken link can be repaired.
Arctic research is already an important underpinning of U.S. investments in resource
exploration, wildlife management, and social services (e.g., Huntington et al., 2011;
Meek et al., 2011; Shanley et al., 2013). Alaska provides half the nations commercial
166

Building Knowledge and Solving Problems
BOX 5.1 CONTINUED
Knowing that there will be a region with persistent summer sea ice poses many challenges:
As there is less and less ice, forecasting the location of the sensitive region will become more
important (Lovecraft and Meek, 2010; Meek and Lovecraft, 2011). How large will it be, and for
how long? How will the ice characteristics change over time (i.e., from multiyear ice to mixed
multiyear and first-year ice, to largely first-year ice)? How much and what types of ice are needed
to support key species, such as polar bears and ringed seals? Projections indicate that the ref-
uge will be located largely within the exclusive economic zones of Canada and Greenland, but
research indicates that the ice supplying it will come from the central Arctic, and with increasing
ice speeds (Kwok et al., 2013; Rampal et al., 2009), from the Siberian continental shelf (Pfirman et
al., 2009). Given the dynamic nature of the ice cover, what issues are raised by oil development,
commercial shipping, and tourism? What would be needed to manage this special regionat
local, national, and international scalesso that the quality of habitat is maintained for as long
as possible? Will this become a region of cooperation, for example, designated internationally as
a special area (Lovecraft and Meek, 2010; Meek and Lovecraft, 2011; Pfirman et al., 2008) or will it
become a region of conflict? Establishment of public-private partnerships (see Chapter 4) may
be the key to co-management of this region.
This is not the only region in the Arctic that is special; other refugia for cold-dependent spe-
cies and hotspots are important because of either their vulnerability or their resilience in the face
of change, and they need to be managed carefully. How do we predict and then set research and
management priorities for regions of high ecological and cultural importance?
fish catch by weight (NMFS, 2012), holds vast reserves of oil and natural gas, is home to
indigenous peoples who continue traditional practices on land and sea that are criti-
cal to culture and community, serves as a bellwether for rapid environmental change
and its impacts, and has a critical role in the regulation of global climate (Euskirchen et
al., 2013). The management of Alaskas fisheries is recognized around the world for its
commitment to sound stewardship based on sound science. The regulation of oil and
gas activities relies on scientific understanding to uphold the high standards needed
to meet the nations commitment to conservation of wildlife and ecosystems. Natural
and social scientific research supports the pursuit of sustainable futures for Arctic
communities.
167

At the same time, research designs in general are not crafted with decision support
for practitioners in mind, and many scientists are ill-prepared to engage substantively
and ethically with these processes (e.g., Sutherland et al., 2013; Tyler, 2013). The role of
research leading to action with knowledge is complex. Knapp and Trainor (2013) com-
piled results from a wide range of stakeholders on ways to improve this science-policy
link. They found that there is strong decision-maker support for making improve-
ments. Their results are consistent with this report: Among other recommendations,
they suggest improvements to broad access to data, knowledge sharing and mobiliza-
tion, regional scale and community-engaged science, and interdisciplinary research
training.
Because of the interdisciplinary nature and the geographic focus of Arctic research,
the scientific community is well poised to improve knowledge mobilization and its
integration in governance and institutions. It is critical in this time of rapid change,
as opportunities for economic development, capacity building, and ecological con-
servation interact, that Arctic research seeks and implements best practices in sup-
porting knowledge integration in governance. These practices need to address the
boundaries between policy-relevant science and policy making (Turnpenny et al.,
2013), actively consider the timescales on which decisions are made (Tyler, 2013), and
produce knowledge that is, and is perceived as, salient, credible, and legitimate (Cash
et al., 2003). In times of rapid change, all of these characteristics can be challenging
and thereby prevent scientific knowledge integration or delay policy implementation
(Tonn et al., 2001).
Providing useful information for Arctic communities is a good example of the im-
portance and difficulty of connecting research to action (e.g., Gerlach and Loring,
2013). The current and future well-being of those communities depends on, among
other things, the ability to respond effectively to the myriad social and environmental
changes that are happening. Information is one part of this equation. Human capac-
ity to act on that information is also required, from individual ability to systems of
governance that foster adaptation and learning. Collaborations with researchers have
great potential to help, but community ownership of both the process and the results
is essential. Communication with other communities can help share ideas and suc-
cesses, building a network of support. These outcomes require understanding of the
ways communities operate, and they also need input beyond that which researchers
provide. In other words, research and researchers can be part of the solution, while
supporting and expanding the communitys capacity to learn and act (Audla, 2014).
The bottom line is this: How can we do a better job of initiating, supporting, and
conducting research that seeks to incorporate salient, legitimate, and timely scientific
advice into Arctic decision making? Funding agencies that collaborate to produce op-
168

Building Knowledge and Solving Problems
portunities that incentivize the integration of curiosity-driven and problem-oriented

research will motivate such research.
Second, how can we help to promote incorporation of decision support in the broader
research community? In the United States many public agencies still advocate the
traditional approach best characterized by the phrase invite, inform, and ignore (Karl
et al., 2007). There is growing awareness that consultative processes are more effec-
tive, particularly in the Arctic context of high costs of field programs and a mobilized
and knowledgeable resident community. To maximize opportunities for knowledge
integration in decisions while ameliorating the potential for conflict and violations of
intellectual property, research programs require decision-maker participation, support
for local research capacities, and investments in education and capacity building.
Decision making based on scientific knowledge tends to be more effective when the
stakeholders and researchers communicate at all phases of the process: from planning
to knowledge generation to assessments of the effectiveness of the decision. Funding
of this sort of work, therefore, should include activities that foster engagement among
the various entities involved.
Connecting research with decisions is in many respects beyond the capacity of an
individual researcher or project. What is needed is more support, both from agencies
that fund research and from agencies that make decisions that could benefit from the
results of such research. Although short-term decision needs cannot drive all aspects
of Arctic research, neither can they be ignored. And although scientific results are not
the only factor considered in decisions (e.g., Tyler, 2013), they are an important com-
ponent, and the Arctic research community as a whole needs to acknowledge the
importance of communicating and working with decision makers. We urge scientists
and decision makers to look for models to emulate and to work together to find new
ways of understanding one another, for the long-term benefit of the Arctic and its
inhabitants.
Addressing the challenges that stem from what is happening in the Arctic in the
Anthropocene requires a greater degree of cooperation, both among researchers from
different disciplines and between researchers and decision makers. In other words,
getting more from Arctic research may best be pursued by enhancing the ways in
which we make use of that research. We need to support more collaboration among
scientists and among nations. We need to improve the application of results by society
by creating more ways to interact and fostering a sense of shared purpose to man-
age change to the best of our abilities. The United States has the resources to invest in
such a range of research undertakings throughout the entire Arctic. A will to apply the
results of research is needed, as is a continued commitment to studying what exists,
what is emerging, and what awaits us in the Arctic.
169


References
Aagaard, K., and E. C. Carmack. 1989. The role of sea ice and other fresh-water in the Arctic circulation. Journal of Geophysi-
cal Research: Oceans 94(C10):14485-14498.
ABA. 2013. Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. Akureyri, Iceland: Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna.
ACIA. 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
AHDR. 2004. Arctic Human Development Report. Stefansson Arctic Institute, Akureyri, Iceland.
Alessa, L., A. Kliskey, and M. Altaweel. 2009. Toward a typology for social-ecological systems. Sustainability: Science, Practice,
and Policy 5(1):31-41.
Alessa, L., A. Kliskey, M. Myers, P. Veazey, S. Gray, N. Puniwai, E. Shanahan, K. Jencso, E. Galindo, J. Gosz, J. Anderson, and A.
Smith. 2013. Community Based Observing Networks (CBONs) for Arctic Adaptation and Security. http://arcticobserv-
ingsummit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/community_based_obs_networks.pdf.
Alkire, M. B., and J. H. Trefry. 2006. Transport of spring floodwater from rivers under ice to the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Journal
of Geophysical Research: Oceans 111(C12).
Alley, R. B. 2007. Wally was right: Predictive ability of the North Atlantic Conveyor belt hypothesis for abrupt climate
change. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 35:241-272.
Alley, R. B., J. T. Andrews, J. Brigham-Grette, G. K. C. Clarke, K. M. Cuffey, J. J. Fitzpatrick, S. Funder, S. J. Marshall, G. H. Miller,
J. X. Mitrovica, D. R. Muhs, B. L. Otto-Bliesner, L. Polyak, and J. W. C. White. 2010. History of the Greenland Ice Sheet:
paleoclimatic insights. Quaternary Science Reviews 29(15-16):1728-1756.
AMAP. 2012. Arctic Climate Issues 2011: Changes in Arctic Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost. SWIPA 2011 Overview Report.
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo.
Amundsen, R. 1908. Roald Amundsens The North-West Passage: Being the Record of a Voyage of Exploration of the Ship
Gjoa, 1903-1907. London: Archibald Constable & Company Limited.
Anderson, L. G., K. Olsson, and M. Chierici. 1998. A carbon budget for the Arctic Ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles
12(3):455-465.
Andrachuk, M., and B. Smit. 2012. Community-based vulnerability assessment of Yuktoyaktuk, NWT, Canada to environ-
mental and socio-economic changes. Regional Environmental Change 12(4):867-885.
Andreu-Hayles, L., R. DArrigo, K. J. Anchukaitis,, P. S. A. Beck, D. Frank, and S. Goetz. 2011. Varying boreal forest response to
Arctic environmental change at the Firth River, Alaska. Environmental Research Letters 6(4):045503.
Andrews, T. D., and G. MacKay. 2012. The archaeology and paleoecology of Alpine ice patches: A global perspective. Arctic
65:iii-vi.
Arctic Council. 2009. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report 2009. Arctic Council, Troms, Norway.
Arrigo, K. R., D. K. Perovich, R. S. Pickart, Z. W. Brown, G. L. van Dijken, K. E. Lowry, M. M. Mills, M. A. Palmer, W. M. Balch, F.
Bahr, N. R. Bates, C. Benitez-Nelson, B. Bowler, E. Brownlee, J. K. Ehn, K. E. Frey, R. Garley, S. R. Laney, L. Lubelczyk, J.
Mathis, A. Matsuoka, B. G. Mitchell, G. W. K. Moore, E. Ortega-Retuerta, S. Pal, C. M. Polashenski, R. A. Reynolds, B.
Schieber, H. M. Sosik, M. Stephens, and J. H. Swift. 2012. Massive phytoplankton blooms under Arctic sea ice. Science
336(6087):1408-1408.
Ashjian, C. J., R. G. Campbell, H. E. Welch, M. Butler, and D. Van Keuren. 2003. Annual cycle in abundance, distribution, and
size in relation to hydrography of important copepod species in the western Arctic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research Part
I-Oceanographic Research Papers 50(10-11):1235-1261.
tland, K. 2009. Russias Northern Fleet and the oil industryRivals or partners? Petroleum, security, and civil-military
relations in the post-Cold War European Arctic. Armed Forces & Society 35(2):362-384.
Audla, T. 2014. Inuit knowledge is not a footnote to real science. Above & Beyond 26(1):53.
AWI. 2013. Escaping the warmth: The Atlantic cod conquers the Arctic. Press Release. Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremer-
haven, Germany.
171

Axworthy, T. S., T. Koivurova, and W. Hasanat, Eds. 2012. The Arctic Council: Its Place in the Future of Arctic Governance.
Rovaniemi, Finland: Arctic Centre.
Backman, J., and K. Moran. 2009. Expanding the Cenozoic paleoceanographic record in the Central Arctic Ocean: IODP
Expedition 302 Synthesis. Central European Journal of Geosciences 1(2):157-175.
Baffrey, M., and H. P. Huntington. 2010. Social and economic effects of oil and gas activities in the Arctic. In AMAP, ed., As-
sessment 2007: Oil and Gas Activities in the ArcticEffects and Potential Effects. Volume 2, pp. 3_1-3_71. Oslo: Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Program.
Ballantyne, A. P., Y. Axford, G. H. Miller, B. L. Otto-Bliesner, N. Rosenbloom, and J. W. C. White. 2013. The amplification of Arctic
terrestrial surface temperatures by reduced sea-ice extent during the Pliocene. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatol-
ogy, Palaeoecology 386:59-67.
Balshi, M. S., A. D. McGuire, P. Duffy, M. Flannigan, J. Walsh, and J. Melillo. 2009. Modeling historical and future area burned
of western boreal North America using a Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) approach. Global Change
Biology 15:578-600.
Bamber, J. L., J. A. Griggs, R. T. W. L. Hurkmans, J. A. Dowdeswell, S. P. Gogineni, I. Howat, J. Mouginot, J. Paden, S. Palmer, E.
Rignot, and D. Steinhage. 2013. A new bed elevation dataset for Greenland. Cryosphere 7(2):499-510.
Barnes, E. A. 2013. Revisiting the evidence linking Arctic amplication to extreme weather in midlatitudes. Geophysical
Research Letters 40(17):47344739.
Barney, R. J., and A. L. Comiskey. 1973. Wildfires and thunderstorms on Alaskas North Slope. Research Note PNW-212.
USDA Forest Service.
Barry, T., L. Grenoble, and F. Fririksson. 2013. Linguistic diversity. In Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: Status and Trends in
Arctic Biodiversity, pp. 431-441. Akureyri, Iceland: Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), Arctic Council. http://
arcticbiodiversity.is/index.php/the-report/chapters/linguistics-diversity.
Bates, N. R. 2006. Air-sea CO2 fluxes and the continental shelf pump of carbon in the Chukchi Sea adjacent to the Arctic
Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 111(C10).
Bates, N. R., and J. T. Mathis. 2009. The Arctic Ocean marine carbon cycle: evaluation of air-sea CO2 exchanges, ocean acidi-
fication impacts and potential feedbacks. Biogeosciences 6(11):2433-2459.
Berton, P. 2000. The Arctic grail: The Quest for the North West Passage, and the North Pole, 1818-1909. New York: Lyons Press.
Bhatt, U. S., D. A. Walker, M. K. Raynolds, J. C. Comiso, H. E. Epstein, G. S. Jia, R. Gens, J. E. Pinzon, C. J. Tucker, C. E. Tweedie, and
P. J. Webber. 2010. Circumpolar Arctic tundra vegetation change is linked to sea ice decline. Earth Interactions 14(8).
Bintanja, R., and E. C. van der Linden. 2013. The changing seasonal climate in the Arctic. Scientific Reports 3.
Blunden, J., and D. S. Arndt. 2013. State of the Climate in 2012. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94(8):S1-S258.
Bocharova, N., G. Treu, G. A. Czirjak, O. Krone, V. Stefanski, G. Wibbelt, E. R. Unnsteinsdottir, P. Hersteinsson, G. Schares, L.
Doronina, M. Goltsman, and A. D. Greenwood. 2013. Correlates between feeding ecology and mercury levels in
historical and modern Arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus). PLOS One 8(5).
Bockstoce, J. R. 1986. Whales, Ice, and Men: The History of Whaling in the Western Arctic. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
Bnisch, G., and P. Schlosser. 1995. Deep water formation and exchange rates in the Greenland/Norwegian Seas and the
Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean derived from tracer balances. Progress in Oceanography 35(1):29-52.
Boucher, O., and D. Randall. 2013. Clouds and aerosols. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, et al., eds., Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis, pp. 571-657. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brigham-Grette, J., M. Melles, P. Minyuk, A. Andreev, P. Tarasov, R. DeConto, S. Koenig, N. Nowaczyk, V. Wennrich, P. Rosen, E.
Haltia, T. Cook, C. Gebhardt, C. Meyer-Jacob, J. Snyder, and U. Herzschuh. 2013. Pliocene warmth, polar amplification,
and stepped Pleistocene cooling recorded in NE Arctic Russia. Science 340(6139):1421-1427.
Broecker, W. S., J. P. Kennett, B. P. Flower, J. T. Teller, S. Trumbore, G. Bonani, and W. Wolfli. 1989. Routing of meltwater from the
Laurentide ice-sheet during the Younger Dryas Cold Episode. Nature 341(6240):318-321.
Bromley, R. G. 1996. Characteristics and management implications of the spring waterfowl hunt in the western Canadian
Arctic, Northwest Territories. Arctic 49(1):70-85.
172

References
Bromwich, D. H., K. M. Hines, and L. S. Bai. 2009. Development and testing of Polar Weather Research and Forecasting model:
2. Arctic Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 114(D8). doi: 10.1029/2008JD010300.
Brunner, R. D., and A. H. Lynch. 2010. Adaptive governance and climate change. Boston, MA: American Meteorological
Society.
Caldeira, K., and L. Wood. 2008. Global and Arctic climate engineering: Numerical model studies. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366(1882):4039-4056.
Campbell, R. G., E. B. Sherr, C. J. Ashjian, S. Plourde, B. F. Sherr, V. Hill, and D. A. Stockwell. 2009. Mesozooplankton prey prefer-
ence and grazing impact in the western Arctic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research Part IITopical Studies in Oceanography
56(17):1274-1289.
Carmack, E. C., R. W. Macdonald, R. G. Perkin, F. A. Mclaughlin, and R. J. Pearson. 1995. Evidence for warming of Atlantic Water
in the Southern Canadian Basin of the Arctic Ocean Results from the Larsen-93 expedition. Geophysical Research
Letters 22(9):1061-1064.
Carmack, E. C., F. A. McLaughlin, S. Vagle, H. Melling, and W. J. Williams. 2010. Structures and property distributions in the
three oceans surrounding Canada in 2007: A basis for a long-term ocean climate monitoring strategy. Atmosphere-
Ocean 48(4):211-224.
Carothers, C., S. Cotton, and K. Moerlein. 2013. Subsistence Use and Knowledge of Salmon in Barrow and Nuiqsut, Alaska.
OCS Study BOEM 2013-2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
Carroll, M. L., J. R. G. Townshend, C. M. DiMiceli, T. Loboda, and R. A. Sohlberg. 2011. Shrinking lakes of the Arctic: Spatial
relationships and trajectory of change. Geophysical Research Letters 38(20).
Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H. Guston, J. Jager, and R. B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems
for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
100(14):8086-8091.
Cassano, J. J., M. E. Higgins, and M. W. Seefeldt. 2011. Performance of the Weather Research and Forecasting Model for
month-long pan-Arctic simulations. Monthly Weather Review 139(11):3469-3488.
Chandler, D. M., J. L. Wadham, G. P. Lis, T. Cowton, A. Sole, I. Bartholomew, J. Telling, P. Nienow, E. B. Bagshaw, D. Mair, S. Vinen,
and A. Hubbard. 2013. Evolution of the subglacial drainage system beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet revealed by
tracers. Nature Geoscience 6(3):195-198.
Chant, R. J. 2011. Interactions between estuaries, and coasts: River plumesTheir formation, transport, and dispersal. In E.
Wolanski and D. S. McLusky, eds., Treatise on Estuarine, and Coastal Science, Vol. 2., pp. 213-235. London: Academic
Press.
Chave, A., M. Arrott, C. Farcas, E. Farcas, I. Kreuger, M. Meisinger, J. A. Prcutt, F. L. Vernon, C. Peach, O. Schofeield, and J. E. Kennett.
2009. Cyberinfrastructure for the U.S. Ocean Observatories Initiative: Enabling inter-active observation in the ocean.
Presented at Oceans 2009, Bremen, Germany.
Coffrey, M., and R. Beavers. 2013. Planning for impact of sea-level rise on U.S. National Parks. Park Science 30(1):6-13.
Cohen, J., M. Barlow, P. J. Kushner, and K. Saito. 2007. Stratosphere-troposphere coupling and links with Eurasian land surface
variability. Journal of Climate 20(21):5335-5343.
Cohen, S. J. 1997. What if and so what in Northwest Canada: Could climate change make a difference to the future of the
Mackenzie Basin? Arctic 50(4): 283-307.
Crees, T., C. D. Kaminski, and J. Ferguson. 2010. UNCOLS under-ice survey: A historic AUV deployment in the high Arctic.
Sea-Technology 51(12):39-44.
Crutzen, P. J., and E. F. Stoermer. 2000. The Anthropocene. Global Change Newsletter 41:17-18.
Curry, B., C. M. Lee, B. Petrie, R. E. Moritz, and R. Kwok. 2014. Multiyear volume, liquid freshwater,and sea ice transports
through Davis Strait, 2004-2010. Journal of Physical Oceanography 44:12441266.
Danielsen, F., N. D. Burgess, P. M. Jensen, and K. Pirhofer-Walzl. 2010. Environmental monitoring: the scale and speed of
implementation varies according to the degree of peoples involvement. Journal of Applied Ecology 47(6):1166-1168.
Darnis, G., D. Robert, C. Pomerleau, H. Link, P. Archambault, R. J. Nelson, M. Geoffroy, J. E. Tremblay, C. Lovejoy, S. H. Ferguson,
B. P. V. Hunt, and L. Fortier. 2012. Current state and trends in Canadian Arctic marine ecosystems: II. Heterotrophic
food web, pelagic-benthic coupling, and biodiversity. Climatic Change 115(1):179-205.
173

Das, S. B., I. Joughin, M. D. Behn, I. M. Howat, M. A. King, D. Lizarralde, and M. P. Bhatia. 2008. Fracture propagation to the base
of the Greenland Ice Sheet during supraglacial lake drainage. Science 320(5877):778-781.
de Boer, G., M. D. Shupe, P. M. Caldwell, S. E. Bauer, O. Persson, J. S. Boyle, M. Kelley, S. A. Klein, and M. Tjernstrom. 2014. Near-
surface meteorology during the Arctic Summer Cloud Ocean Study (ASCOS): evaluation of reanalyses and global
climate models. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 14(1):427-445.
Dee, D. P., S. M. Uppala, A. J. Simmons, P. Berrisford, P. Poli, S. Kobayashi, U. Andrae, M. A. Balmaseda, G. Balsamo, P. Bauer, P.
Bechtold, A. C. M. Beljaars, L. van de Berg, J. Bidlot, N. Bormann, C. Delsol, R. Dragani, M. Fuentes, A. J. Geer, L. Haimberger,
S. B. Healy, H. Hersbach, E. V. Holm, L. Isaksen, P. Kallberg, M. Kohler, M. Matricardi, A. P. McNally, B. M. Monge-Sanz, J. J.
Morcrette, B. K. Park, C. Peubey, P. de Rosnay, C. Tavolato, J. N. Thepaut, and F. Vitart. 2011. The ERA-Interim reanalysis:
configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological So-
ciety 137(656):553-597.
Derksen, C., and R. Brown. 2012. Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model
projections. Geophysical Research Letters 39.
Dethloff, K., A. Rinke, R. Lehmann, J. H. Christensen, M. Botzet, and B. Machenhauer. 1996. Regional climate model of the
arctic atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 101(D18):23401-23422.
Dickens, G. R. 2003. Rethinking the global carbon cycle with a large, dynamic and microbially mediated gas hydrate capaci-
tor. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 213(3-4):169-183.
Dickson, B., I. Yashayaev, J. Meincke, B. Turrell, S. Dye, and J. Holfort. 2002. Rapid freshening of the deep North Atlantic Ocean
over the past four decades. Nature 416(6883):832-837.
Dickson, R. R., J. Meincke, S. A. Malmberg, and A. J. Lee. 1988. The Great Salinity Anomaly in the Northern North-Atlantic
1968-1982. Progress in Oceanography 20(2):103-151.
Dixon, E. J., C. M. Lee, W. F. Manley, R. A. Warden, and W. D. Harrison. 2007. The frozen past of WrangellSt.Elias National Park
and Reserve. Alaska Park Science 6(1):24-29.
DOD. 2013. Arctic Strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense.
Dorn, W., K. Dethloff, and A. Rinke. 2009. Improved simulation of feedbacks between atmosphere and sea ice over the Arctic
Ocean in a coupled regional climate model. Ocean Modelling 29(2):103-114.
Dunbar, R. B., J. Alberts, C. Ashjian, V. Asper, D. Chayes, E. Domack, H. Ducklow, B. Huber, L. Lawver, D. Oliver, D. Russell, C. R.
Smith, and M. Vernet. 2012. A new US polar research vessel for the twenty-first century. Oceanography 25(3):204-207.
Dunton, K. H., T. Weingartner, and E. C. Carmack. 2006. The nearshore western Beaufort Sea ecosystem: Circulation and
importance of terrestrial carbon in arctic coastal food webs. Progress in Oceanography 71(2-4):362-378.
Durner, G. M., D. C. Douglas, R. M. Nielson, S. C. Amstrup, T. L. McDonald, I. Stirling, M. Mauritzen, E. W. Born, O. Wiig, E. DeWeaver,
M. C. Serreze, S. E. Belikov, M. M. Holland, J. Maslanik, J. Aars, D. A. Bailey, and A. E. Derocher. 2009. Predicting 21st-century
polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models. Ecological Monographs 79(1):25-58.
Edwards, M., G. Beaugrand, P. C. Reid, A. A. Rowden, and M. B. Jones. 2002. Ocean climate anomalies and the ecology of the
North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 239:1-10.
Euskirchen, E. S., E. S. Goodstein, and H. P. Huntington. 2013. An estimated cost of lost climate regulation services caused
by thawing of the Arctic cryosphere. Ecological Applications 23(8):1869-1880.
Executive Office of the President. 2013. Arctic Research Plan: FY 2013-2017. Executive Office of the President, National
Science and Technology Council. Washington, DC.
Falkner, K. K., H. Melling, A. M. Mnchow, J. E. Box, T. Wohlleben, H. L. Johnson, P. Gudmandsen, R. Samelson, L. Copland, K.
Steffen, E. Rignot, and A. K. Higgins. 2011. Context for the Recent Massive Petermann Glacier Calving Event. Eos,
Transactions American Geophysical Union 92(14):117-118.
Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, J. A., D. J. Jacob, A. L. Soerensen, H. M. Amos, A. Steffen, and E. M. Sunderland. 2012. Riverine source of Arctic Ocean
mercury inferred from atmospheric observations. Nature Geoscience 5(7):499-504.
Fitzhugh, W. W., A. Crowell, and National Museum of Natural History (U.S.). 1988. Crossroads of continents: Cultures of
Siberia and Alaska. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Flannigan, M. D., K. A. Logan, B. D. Amiro, W. R. Skinner, and B. J. Stocks. 2005. Future area burned in Canada. Climatic Change
72(1-2):1-16.
174

References
Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, and C. S. Holling. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and
biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 35:557-581.
Forbes, D. L., Ed. 2011. State of the Arctic Coast 2010Scientific Review and Outlook. International Arctic Science Com-
mittee, Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, International
Permafrost Association. Geesthacht, Germany: Helmholtz-Zentrum.
Forster, R. R., J. E. Box, M. R. v. d. Broeke, C. Mige, E. W. Burgess, J. H. v. Angelen, J. T. M. Lenaerts, L. S. Koenig, J. Paden, C. Lewis,
S. P. Gogineni, C. Leuschen, and J. R. McConnell. 2014. Extensive liquid meltwater storage in firn within the Greenland
ice sheet. Nature Geoscience 7:95-98. doi:10.1038/ngeo2043.
Francis, J. A., and S. J. Vavrus. 2012. Evidence linking Arctic amplification with extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Geophysi-
cal Research Letters 39(6).
Francis, J. A., D. M. White, J. J. Cassano, W. J. Gutowski, L. D. Hinzman, M. M. Holland, M. A. Steele, and C. J. Vorosmarty. 2009.
An arctic hydrologic system in transition: Feedbacks and impacts on terrestrial, marine, and human life. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 114.
Francois, R. E., and W. E. Nodland. 1972. Unmanned Arctic Research Submersible (UARS) system Development and Test
Report. APL-UW Report 7219. Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington, Seattle.
Fransson, A., M. Chierici, L. C. Anderson, I. Bussmann, G. Kattner, E. P. Jones, and J. H. Swift. 2001. The importance of shelf
processes for the modification of chemical constituents in the waters of the Eurasian Arctic Ocean: Implication for
carbon fluxes. Continental Shelf Research 21(3):225-242.
Frey, K. E., D. K. Perovich, and B. Light. 2011. The spatial distribution of solar radiation under a melting Arctic sea ice cover.
Geophysical Research Letters 38.
Funder, S., O. Bennike, J. Bcher, C. Israelson, K. S. Peterson, and L. A. Simonarson. 2001. Late Pliocene Greenland: The Kap
Kbenhavn Formation in North Greenland. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 48:117-134.
Furgal, C., and T. D. Prowse. 2008. Northern Canada. In D. S. Lemmen, F. J. Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush, eds., From Impacts
to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Government of Canada.
Fussel, H.-M. 2009. Development and Climate Change: Review and Quantitative Analysis of Indices of Climate Change
Exposure, Adaptive Capacity, Sensitivity, and Impacts. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Fyfe, J. C., K. von Salzen, J. N. S. Cole, N. P. Gillett, and J. P. Vernier. 2013. Surface response to stratospheric aerosol changes in
a coupled atmosphere-ocean model. Geophysical Research Letters 40(3):584-588.
Galley, R. J., B. G. T. Else, S. E. L. Howell, J. V. Lukovich, and D. G. Barber. 2012. Landfast sea ice conditions in the Canadian
Arctic: 1983-2009. Arctic 65(2):133-144.
Gamon, J. A., K. F. Huemmrich, R. S. Stone, and C. E. Tweedie. 2013. Spatial and temporal variation in primary productivity
(NDVI) of coastal Alaskan tundra: Decreased vegetation growth following earlier snowmelt. Remote Sensing of
Environment 129:144-153.
GAO. 2003. Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Gardiner, S. M. 2011. Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: A commentary on the values of the Royal Society
report. Environmental Values 20(2):163-188.
Gautier, D. L., K. J. Bird, R. R. Charpentier, A. Grantz, D. W. Houseknecht, T. R. Klett, T. E. Moore, J. K. Pitman, C. J. Schenk, J. H.
Schuenemeyer, K. Sorensen, M. E. Tennyson, Z. C. Valin, and C. J. Wandrey. 2009. Assessment of undiscovered oil and
gas in the Arctic. Science 324(5931):1175-1179.
Gearheard, S., W. Matumeak, I. Angutikjuaq, J. Maslanik, H. P. Huntington, J. Leavitt, D. M. Kagak, G. Tigullaraq, and R. G. Barry.
2006. Its not that simple: A collaborative comparison of sea ice environments, their uses, observed changes, and
adaptations in Barrow, Alaska, USA, and Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada. Ambio 35(4):203-211.
Geirsdottir, A., G. H. Miller, D. J. Larsen, and S. Olafsdottir. 2013. Abrupt Holocene climate transitions in the northern North
Atlantic region recorded by synchronized lacustrine records in Iceland. Quaternary Science Reviews 70:48-62.
Gerlach, S. C., and P. A. Loring. 2013. Rebuilding northern foodsheds, sustainable food systems, community well-being, and
food security. International Journal of Circumpolar Health 72:87-90.
Glisan, J. M., W. J. Gutowski, J. J. Cassano, and M. E. Higgins. 2013. Effects of spectral nudging in WRF on Arctic temperature
and precipitation simulations. Journal of Climate 26(12):3985-3999.
175

Gordon, A. L., M. Visbeck, and J. C. Comiso. 2007. A possible link between the Weddell Polynya and the Southern Annular
Mode. Journal of Climate 20(11):2558-2571.
Grasby, S. E., H. Sanei, and B. Beauchamp. 2011. Catastrophic dispersion of coal fly ash into oceans during the latest Permian
Extinction. Nature Geoscience 4(2):104-107.
Gray, C., L. Bergey, and W. A. Berbrick. 2011. Fleet Arctic Operations Game: Game Report. Newport, Rhode Island: U.S. Naval
War College
Grebmeier, J. M. 2012. Shifting patterns of life in the Pacific Arctic and sub-Arctic seas. Annual Review of Marine Science
4 (4):63-78.
Grebmeier, J. M., S. E. Moore, J. E. Overland, K. E. Frey, and R. Gradinger. 2010. Biological response to recent Pacific Arctic sea
ice retreats. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 91(18):161-168.
Greene, C. H., and A. J. Pershing. 2007. Climate drives sea change. Science 315(5815):1084-1085.
Guthrie, J. D., J. H. Morison, and I. Fer. 2013. Revisiting internal waves and mixing in the Arctic Ocean. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Oceans 118(8):3966-3977.
Halfar, J., W. H. Adey, A. Kronz, S. Hetzinger, E. Edinger, and W. W. Fitzhugh. 2013. Arctic sea-ice decline archived by multicen-
tury annual-resolution record from crustose coralline algal proxy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 110(49):19737-19741.
Hamilton, L. C. 2010. Footprints: Demographic effects of outmigration. In L. Husky and. C. Southcott, eds., Migration in the
Circumpolar North: Issues and Contexts. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Circumpolar Institute.
Hamilton, L. C., and M. Lemcke-Stampone. 2013. Arctic warming and your weather: Public belief in the connection. Inter-
national Journal of Climatology 34:1723-1728. doi: 10.1002/joc.3796.
Hansen, B. B., V. Grotan, R. Aanes, B. E. Saether, A. Stien, E. Fuglei, R. A. Ims, N. G. Yoccoz, and A. O. Pedersen. 2013. Climate
events synchronize the dynamics of a resident vertebrate community in the High Arctic. Science 339(6117):313-315.
Helander, E., and T. Mustonen, Eds. 2004. Snowscapes, Dreamscapes. Snowchange Book on Community Voices of Change.
Tampere, Finland: Tampere Polytechnic Publications.
Hell, K., A. Edwards, J. Zarsky, S. M. Podmirseg, S. Girdwood, J. A. Pachebat, H. Insam, and B. Sattler. 2013. The dynamic bacterial
communities of a melting High Arctic glacier snowpack. ISME Journal 7(9):1814-1826.
Hensley, W. L. I. 2010. Fifty Miles from Tomorrow: A Memoir of Alaska and the Real People. New York, NY: Sarah Crichton
Books.
Hines, J. E., and R. W. Brook. 2008. Changes in annual survival estimates for Black Brant from the Western Canadian Arctic,
1962-2001. Waterbirds 31(2):220-230.
Hinzman, L. D., C. J. Deal, A. D. McGuire, S. H. Mernild, I. V. Polyakov, and J. E. Walsh. 2013. Trajectory of the Arctic as an inte-
grated system. Ecological Applications 23:1837-1868.
Hobbie, J. E., and G. W. Kling, Eds. 2014. Alaskas Changing Arctic: Ecological Consequences for Tundra, Streams, and Lakes.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Holland-Bartels, L., and B. Pierce. 2011. An Evaluation of the Science Needs to Inform Decisions on Outer Continental Shelf
Energy Development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. Circular 1370. Washington, DC : U.S. Geological Survey.
Holland, M. M., and C. M. Bitz. 2003. Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models. Climate Dynamics
21(3-4):221-232.
Holloway, G., F. Dupont, E. Golubeva, S. Hakkinen, E. Hunke, M. Jin, M. Karcher, F. Kauker, M. Maltrud, M. A. M. Maqueda, W.
Maslowski, G. Platov, D. Stark, M. Steele, T. Suzuki, J. Wang, and J. Zhang. 2007. Water properties and circulation in Arctic
Ocean models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 112(C4).
Holloway, G., A. Nguyen, and Z. L. Wang. 2011. Oceans and ocean models as seen by current meters. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Oceans 116 (C8, August 2011).
Hollowed, A. B., B. Planque, and H. Loeng. 2013. Potential movement of fish and shellfish stocks from the sub-Arctic to the
Arctic Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography 22(5):355-370.
Holmes, R. M., M. T. Coe, G. J. Fiske, T. Gurtovaya, J. W. McClelland, A. I. Shiklomanov, R. G. Spencer, S. E. Tank, and A. V. Zhulidov.
2013. Climate change impacts on the hydrology and biogeochemistry of Arctic Rivers. In C. R. Goldman, M. Kumagai,
and R. D. Robarts, eds., Global Impacts of Climate Change on Inland Waters, pp. 1-26. Somerset, NJ: Wiley.
176

References
Hopcroft, R. R., J. Questel, and C. Clarke-Hopcroft. 2010. Oceanographic Assessment of the Planktonic Communities in
the Klondike and Burger Survey Areas of the Chukchi Sea: Report for Survey Year 2009 Institute of Marine Science,
University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Hovelsrud, G. K., B. Poppel, B. van Oort, and J. D. Reist. 2011. Arctic societies, cultures, and peoples in a changing Cryosphere.
Ambio 40:100-110.
Howat, I. M., I. Joughin, and T. A. Scambos. 2007. Rapid changes in ice discharge from Greenland outlet glaciers. Science
315(5818):1559-1561.
Howat, I. M., I. Joughin, S. Tulaczyk, and S. Gogineni. 2005. Rapid retreat and acceleration of Helheim Glacier, east Greenland.
Geophysical Research Letters 32(22).
Humphrey, N. F., J. T. Harper, and W. T. Pfeffer. 2012. Thermal tracking of meltwater retention in Greenlands accumulation
area. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 117(F1, March).
Huntington, H. P. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and applications. Ecological Applica-
tions 10(5):1270-1274.
Huntington, H. P. 2011. The local perspective. Nature 478: 182-183.
Huntington, H. P., S. Gearheard, A. R. Mahoney, and A. K. Salomon. 2011. Integrating traditional and scientific knowledge
through collaborative natural science field research: Identifying elements for success. Arctic 64(4):437-445.
Huntington, H. P., E. Goodstein, and E. Euskirchen. 2012. Towards a tipping point in responding to change: Rising costs,
fewer options for Arctic and global societies. Ambio 41(1):66-74.
Hwang, Y. T., D. M. W. Frierson, and J. E. Kay. 2011. Coupling between Arctic feedbacks and changes in poleward energy
transport. Geophysical Research Letters 38.
IGBP (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme). 2013. Ocean Acidification: Summary for Policymakers. Third Sym-
posium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World. Stockholm, Sweden: International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme.
Imlach, J., and R. Mahr. 2012. Modification of a military grade glider for coastal scientific applications. Presented at Oceans
2012, Hampton Roads, VA, October 14-19, 2012.
IPCC. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution
of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon,
D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, eds. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley, eds. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, USA: Cambridge
University Press.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 28, Polar Regions. Final Draft. J.N.
Larsen, and O.A. Anisimov, eds.
Irvine-Fynn, T. D. L., E. Hanna, N. E. Barrand, P. R. Porter, J. Kohler, and A. J. Hodson. 2014. Examination of a physically based,
high-resolution, distributed Arctic temperature-index melt model, on Midtre Lovenbreen, Svalbard. Hydrological
Processes 28(1):134-149.
Jackson, K., J. Wilkinson, T. Maksym, D. Meldrum, J. Beckers, C. Haas, and D. Mackenzie. 2013. A noveland low-cost sea ice
mass balance buoy. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 30(11):2676-2688.
Jackson, T. J., M. H. Cosh, R. Bindlish, P. J. Starks, D. D. Bosch, M. Seyfried, D. C. Goodrich, M. S. Moran, and J. Y. Du. 2010. Vali-
dation of advanced microwave scanning radiometer soil moisture products. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing 48(12):4256-4272.
Jahn, A., B. Tremblay, L. A. Mysak, and R. Newton. 2010. Effect of the large-scale atmospheric circulation on the variability
of the Arctic Ocean freshwater export. Climate Dynamics 34(2-3):201-222.
Jakobson, E., T. Vihma, T. Palo, L. Jakobson, H. Keernik, and J. Jaagus. 2012. Validation of atmospheric reanalyses over the
central Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 39.
Jandt, R. R., E. A. Miller, D. A. Yokel, M. S. Bret-Harte, C. A. Kolden, and M. C. Mack. 2012. Findings of Anaktuvuk River Fire
Recovery Study 2007-2011. BLM-Alaska Open File Report 82.
177

Jeffries, M. O., J. E. Overland, and D. K. Perovich. 2013. The Arctic shifts to a new normal. Physics Today 66(10):35-40.
Jeffries, M. O., J. A. Richter-Menge, and J. E. Overland, Eds. 2012. Arctic Report Card 2012: NOAA Arctic Research Program.
Available at http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard, accessed January 24, 2014.
Jentoft, S., Ed. 1998. Commons in a cold climate: Coastal fisheries and reindeer pastoralism in North Norway: The co-
management approach. Man and the Biosphere Series 22. Paris and New York: UNESCO and the Parthenon Publish-
ing Group.
Jeong, J. H., J. S. Kug, B. M. Kim, S. K. Min, H. W. Linderholm, C. H. Ho, D. Rayner, D. L. Chen, and S. Y. Jun. 2012. Greening in
the circumpolar high-latitude may amplify warming in the growing season. Climate Dynamics 38(7-8):1421-1431.
Johnstone, J. F., F. S. Chapin, T. N. Hollingsworth, M. C. Mack, V. Romanovsky, and M. Turetsky. 2010. Fire, climate change, and
forest resilience in interior Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research/Revue Canadienne de Recherche Forestire
40(7):1302-1312.
Joughin, I., W. Abdalati, and M. Fahnestock. 2004. Large fluctuations in speed on Greenlands Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier.
Nature 432(7017):608-610.
Joughin, I., S. B. Das, G. E. Flowers, M. D. Behn, R. B. Alley, M. A. King, B. E. Smith, J. L. Bamber, M. R. van den Broeke, and J. H. van
Angelen. 2013. Influence of ice-sheet geometry and supraglacial lakes on seasonal ice-flow variability. Cryosphere
7(4):1185-1192.
Joughin, I., S. B. Das, M. A. King, B. E. Smith, I. M. Howat, and T. Moon. 2008. Seasonal speedup along the western flank of the
Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 320(5877):781-783.
Karl, H. A., L. E. Susskind, and K. H. Wallace. 2007. A dialogue, not a diatribe: Effective integration of science and policy
through joint fact finding. Environmental Politics 49:20-34.
Karlsson, J., and G. Svensson. 2013. Consequences of poor representation of Arctic sea-ice albedo and cloud-radiation
interactions in the CMIP5 model ensemble. Geophysical Research Letters 40(16):4374-4379.
Kasischke, E. S., and E. E. Hoy. 2012. Controls on carbon consumption during Alaskan wildland fires. Global Change Biology
18(2):685-699.
Kasischke, E. S., and M. R. Turetsky. 2006. Recent changes in the fire regime across the North American boreal region: Spatial
and temporal patterns of burning across Canada and Alaska. Geophysical Research Letters 33(9).
Kasper, J. L., and T. J. Weingartner. 2012. Modeling winter circulation under landfast ice: The interaction of winds with
landfast ice. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 117.
Kattsov, V. M., V. E. Ryabinin, J. E. Overland, M. C. Serreze, M. Visbeck, J. E. Walsh, W. Meier, and X. D. Zhang. 2010. Arctic sea-ice
change: A grand challenge of climate science. Journal of Glaciology 56(200):1115-1121.
Kaufman, D. S., T. A. Ager, N. J. Anderson, P. M. Anderson, J. T. Andrews, P. J. Bartlein, L. B. Brubaker, L. L. Coats, L. C. Cwynar,
M. L. Duvall, A. S. Dyke, M. E. Edwards, W. R. Eisner, K. Gajewski, A. Geirsdottir, F. S. Hu, A. E. Jennings, M. R. Kaplan, M. N.
Kerwin, A. V. Lozhkin, G. M. MacDonald, G. H. Miller, C. J. Mock, W. W. Oswald, B. L. Otto-Bliesner, D. F. Porinchu, K. Ruh-
land, J. P. Smol, E. J. Steig, and B. B. Wolfe. 2004. Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic (0-180 degrees W).
Quaternary Science Reviews 23(5-6):529-560.
Kelly, B., A. Whiteley, and D. Tallmon. 2010. The Arctic melting pot. Nature 468(7326):891-891.
Kennett, J. P., K. G. Cannariato, I. L. Hendy, and R. J. Behl. 2008. Methane hydrate destabilization: Carbon isotopic evidence
for methane hydrate instability during quaternary interstadials. Science 288: 128-133.
Khan, S. A., K. H. Kjr, M. Bevis, J. L. Bamber, J. Wahr, K. K. Kjeldsen, A. A. Bjrk, N. J. Korsgaard, L. A. Stearns, M. R. v. d. Broeke,
L. Liu, N. K. Larsen, and I. S. Muresan. 2014. Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ice sheet triggered by
regional warming. Nature Climate Change 4: 292-299.
Kicklighter, D. W., D. J. Hayes, J. W. McClelland, B. J. Peterson, A. D. McGuire, and J. M. Melillo. 2013. Insights and issues with
simulating terrestrial DOC loading of Arctic river networks. Ecological Applications 23:1817-1836.
Klein, J. Z. 2013. Rinks in Canadas Arctic turn to cooling systems. New York Times, January 4.
178

References
Klein, S. A., R. B. McCoy, H. Morrison, A. S. Ackerman, A. Avramov, G. de Boer, M. X. Chen, J. N. S. Cole, A. D. Del Genio, M. Falk, M.
J. Foster, A. Fridlind, J. C. Golaz, T. Hashino, J. Y. Harrington, C. Hoose, M. F. Khairoutdinov, V. E. Larson, X. H. Liu, Y. L. Luo, G.
M. McFarquhar, S. Menon, R. A. J. Neggers, S. Park, M. R. Poellot, J. M. Schmidt, I. Sednev, B. J. Shipway, M. D. Shupe, D. A.
Spangenbery, Y. C. Sud, D. D. Turner, D. E. Veron, K. von Salzen, G. K. Walker, Z. E. Wang, A. B. Wolf, S. C. Xie, K. M. Xu, F. L.
Yang, and G. Zhang. 2009. Intercomparison of model simulations of mixed-phase clouds observed during the ARM
Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. I: Single-layer cloud. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
135(641):979-1002.
Knapp, C. N., and S. F. Trainor. 2013. Adapting science to a warming world. Global Environmental Change 23(5):1296-1306.
Knutti, R., and J. Sedlacek. 2013. Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections. Nature Climate
Change 3(4):369-373.
Krishfield, R., J. Toole, A. Proshutinsky, and M. L. Timmermans. 2008. Automated ice-tethered profilers for seawater observa-
tions under pack ice in all seasons. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 25(11):2091-2105.
Krupnik, I. 1993. Arctic adaptations: Native whalers and reindeer herders of northern Eurasia. Hanover, NH: University Press
of New England for Dartmouth College.
Krupnik, I., and D. Jolly, Eds. 2002. The Earth is faster now: Indigenous observations of Arctic environmental change. Fair-
banks, AK: Arctic Research Consortium of the United States.
Kunz, C., C. Murphy, H. Singh, C. Pontbriand, R. A. Sohn, S. Singh, T. Sato, C. Roman, K. Nakamura, M. Jakuba, R. Eustice, R.
Camilli, and J. Bailey. 2009. Toward extraplanetary under-ice exploration: Robotic steps in the Arctic. Journal of Field
Robotics 26(4):411-429.
Kutz, S. J., E. P. Hoberg, L. Polley, and E. J. Jenkins. 2005. Global warming is changing the dynamics of Arctic host-parasite
systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272(1581):2571-2576.
Kwok, R., G. Spreen, and S. Pang. 2013. Arctic sea ice circulation and drift speed: Decadal trends and ocean currents. Journal
of Geophysical Research: Oceans 118(5):2408-2425.
Laing, R. D. 1970. Knots. London: Tavistock Publications.
Lantuit, H., P. P. Overduin, N. Couture, S. Wetterich, F. Are, D. Atkinson, J. Brown, G. Cherkashov, D. Drozdov, D. L. Forbes, A.
Graves-Gaylord, M. Grigoriev, H. W. Hubberten, J. Jordan, T. Jorgenson, R. S. Odegard, S. Ogorodov, W. H. Pollard, V.
Rachold, S. Sedenko, S. Solomon, F. Steenhuisen, I. Streletskaya, and A. Vasiliev. 2012. The Arctic Coastal Dynamics da-
tabase: A new classification scheme and statistics on Arctic permafrost coastlines. Estuaries and Coasts 35(2):383-400.
Lassuy, D. R., and P. N. Lewis. 2013. Invasive species: Human induced. In H. Meltofte, ed., Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: Status
and Trends in Arctic Biodiversity. Akureyri, Iceland: Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna.
Lee, C. M., S. Cole, M. Doble, L. Freitag, P. Hwang, S. Jayne, M. Jeffries, R. Krishfield, T. Maksym, W. Maslowski, B. Owens, P. Posey,
L. Rainville, B. Shaw, T. Stanton, J. Thomson, M.-L. Timmermans, J. Toole, P. Wadhams, J. Wilkinson, and J. Zhang. 2012.
Marginal Ice Zone (MIZ) Program: Science and Experiment Plan. Seattle: Applied Physics Laboratory, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Leitch, D. R., J. Carrie, D. Lean, R. W. Macdonald, G. A. Stern, and F. Y. Wang. 2007. The delivery of mercury to the Beaufort Sea
of the Arctic Ocean by the Mackenzie River. Science of the Total Environment 373(1):178-195.
Lenton, T. M. 2012. Arctic climate tipping points. Ambio 41(1):10-22.
Levasseur, M. 2013. Impact of Arctic meltdown on the microbial cycling of sulphur. Nature Geoscience 6(9):691-700.
Li, W. K. W., F. A. McLaughlin, C. Lovejoy, and E. C. Carmack. 2009. Smallest algae thrive as the Arctic Ocean freshens. Science
326(5952):539.
Liang, S. L., H. L. Fang, M. Z. Chen, C. J. Shuey, C. Walthall, C. Daughtry, J. Morisette, C. Schaaf, and A. Strahler. 2002. Validating
MODIS land surface reflectance and albedo products: methods and preliminary results. Remote Sensing of Environ-
ment 83(1-2):149-162.
Lindholt, L. 2006. Arctic natural resources in a global perspective. In S. Glomsrod and J. Aslaksen, eds., The Economy of the
North, pp. 27-39 . Oslo, Norway: Statistics Norway.
Liu, J. G., V. Hull, M. Batistella, R. DeFries, T. Dietz, F. Fu, T. W. Hertel, R. C. Izaurralde, E. F. Lambin, S. X. Li, L. A. Martinelli, W. J.
McConnell, E. F. Moran, R. Naylor, Z. Y. Ouyang, K. R. Polenske, A. Reenberg, G. D. Rocha, C. S. Simmons, P. H. Verburg, P. M.
Vitousek, F. S. Zhang, and C. Q. Zhu. 2013. Framing Sustainability in a Telecoupled World. Ecology and Society 18(2).
Lloyds. 2012. Arctic Opening: Opportunity, and Risks in the High North. London: Chatham House.
179

Loboda, T. V., N. H. F. French, C. Hight-Harf, L. Jenkins, and M. E. Miller. 2013. Mapping fire extent and burn severity in Alas-
kan tussock tundra: An analysis of the spectral response of tundra vegetation to wildland fire. Remote Sensing of
Environment 134:194-209.
Lochner, M. 2012. Coastal erosion threatens archaeological site near Quinhagak. Anchorage Press, September 13.
Loeng, H., and K. Drinkwater. 2007. An overview of the ecosystems of the Barents and Norwegian Seas and their response
to climate variability. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 54(23-26):2478-2500.
Lovecraft, A. L., and C. L. Meek. 2010. Creating future fit between ice and society: The institutionalization of a refuge in
the Arctic to preserve sea ice system services in a changing North. Presented at American Geophysical Union, Fall
Meeting 2010.
Luo, Y. L., K. M. Xu, H. Morrison, G. M. McFarquhar, Z. Wang, and G. Zhang. 2008. Multi-layer arctic mixed-phase clouds
simulated by a cloud-resolving model: Comparison with ARM observations and sensitivity experiments. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 113(D12).
Lynch, A. H., W. L. Chapman, J. E. Walsh, and G. Weller. 1995. Development of a regional climate model of the Western Arctic.
Journal of Climate 8(6):1555-1570.
Lynch, A. H., L. Tryhorn, and R. Abramson. 2008. Working at the boundary: Facilitating interdisciplinarity in climate change
adaptation research. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 89(2):169-179.
MacCracken, M. C., H. J. Shin, K. Caldeira, and G. A. Ban-Weiss. 2013. Climate response to imposed solar radiation reductions
in high latitudes. Earth System Dynamics 4(2):301-315.
Manabe, S., and R. J. Stouffer. 1980. Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmo-
sphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 85(C10):5529-5554.
Mankoff, K. D., and T. A. Russo. 2013. The Kinect: A low-cost, high-resolution, short-range 3D camera. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 38(9):926-936.
Mann, M. E., Z. H. Zhang, S. Rutherford, R. S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes, D. Shindell, C. Ammann, G. Faluvegi, and F. B. Ni. 2009. Global
signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science 326(5957):1256-1260.
Markwick, P. J. 1998. Fossil crocodilians as indicators of Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic climates: Implications for us-
ing palaeontological data in reconstructing palaeoclimate. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
137(3-4):205-271.
Martinson, D. G., and M. Steele. 2001. Future of the Arctic sea ice cover: Implications of an Antarctic analog. Geophysical
Research Letters 28(2):301-310.
Masato, G., B. J. Hoskins, and T. Woollings. 2013. Winter and summer Northern Hemisphere blocking in CMIP5 models.
Maslanik, J., S. Drobot, C. Fowler, W. Emery, and R. Barry. 2007. On the Arctic climate paradox and the continuing role of
atmospheric circulation in affecting sea ice conditions. Geophysical Research Letters 34(3).
Mathis, J. T., R. S. Pickart, R. H. Byrne, C. L. McNeil, G. W. K. Moore, L. W. Juranek, X. W. Liu, J. Ma, R. A. Easley, M. M. Elliot, J. N.
Cross, S. C. Reisdorph, F. Bahr, J. Morison, T. Lichendorf and R. A. Feely. 2012. Storm-induced upwelling of high pCO2
waters onto the continental shelf of the western Arctic Ocean and implications for carbonate mineral saturation
states. Geophysical Research Letters 39.
Matsuno, K., A. Yamaguchi, T. Hirawake, and I. Imai. 2011. Year-to-year changes of the mesozooplankton community in the
Chukchi Sea during summers of 1991, 1992 and 2007, 2008. Polar Biology 34(9):1349-1360.
McCabe, G. J., M. P. Clark, and M. C. Serreze. 2001. Trends in Northern Hemisphere surface cyclone frequency and intensity.
McGhee, R. 2007. The last imaginary place: A human history of the Arctic world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, F. A., and E. C. Carmack. 2010. Deepening of the nutricline and chlorophyll maximum in the Canada Basin
interior, 2003-2009. Geophysical Research Letters 37.
McLaughlin, F. A., E. C. Carmack, W. J. Williams, S. Zimmermann, K. Shimada, and M. Itoh. 2009. Joint effects of boundary
currents and thermohaline intrusions on the warming of Atlantic water in the Canada Basin, 1993-2007. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Oceans 114.
Meek, C. L., and A. L. Lovecraft. 2011. The institutional dimension of sea ice service conservation. Presented at the Seventh
International Congress of Arctic Social Sciences (ICASS VII), Akureyri, Iceland, June 22-26, 2011.
180

References
Meek, C. L., A. L. Lovecraft, R. Varjopuro, M. Dowsley, and A. T. Dale. 2011. Adaptive governance and the human dimensions
of marine mammal management: Implications for policy in a changing North. Marine Policy 35(4):466-476.
Meier, M. F., M. B. Dyurgerov, U. K. Rick, S. ONeel, W. T. Pfeffer, R. S. Anderson, S. P. Anderson, and A. F. Glazovsky. 2007. Glaciers
dominate eustatic sea-level rise in the 21st century. Science 317(5841):1064-1067.
Meisinger, M., C. Farcas, E. Farcas, C. Alexander, M. Arrott, J. d. L. Beaujardiere, P. Hubbard, R. Mendelssohn, and R. Signell. 2009.
Serving ocean model data on the cloud. Presented at Oceans 2009, Biloxi, Mississippi.
Melles, M., J. Brigham-Grette, P. S. Minyuk, N. R. Nowaczyk, V. Wennrich, R. M. DeConto, P. M. Anderson, A. A. Andreev, A. Coletti,
T. L. Cook, E. Haltia-Hovi, M. Kukkonen, A. V. Lozhkin, P. Rosen, P. Tarasov, H. Vogel, and B. Wagner. 2012. 2.8 million years
of Arctic climate change from Lake Elgygytgyn, NE Russia. Science 337(6092):315-320.
Miller, G. H., R. B. Alley, J. Brigham-Grette, J. J. Fitzpatrick, L. Polyak, M. C. Serreze, and J. W. C. White. 2010. Arctic amplification:
Can the past constrain the future? Quaternary Science Reviews 29(15-16):1779-1790.
Miller, G. H., S. J. Lehman, K. A. Refsnider, J. R. Southon, and Y. Zhong. 2013. Unprecedented recent summer warmth in Arctic
Canada. Geophysical Research Letters 40(21):2013GL057188.
Moran, K., J. Backman, H. Brinkhuis, S. C. Clemens, T. Cronin, G. R. Dickens, F. Eynaud, J. Gattacceca, M. Jakobsson, R. W. Jordan,
M. Kaminski, J. King, N. Koc, A. Krylov, N. Martinez, J. Matthiessen, D. McInroy, T. C. Moore, J. Onodera, M. ORegan, H.
Palike, B. Rea, D. Rio, T. Sakamoto, D. C. Smith, R. Stein, K. St John, I. Suto, N. Suzuki, K. Takahashi, M. Watanabe, M. Yama-
moto, J. Farrell, M. Frank, P. Kubik, W. Jokat, and Y. Kristoffersen. 2006. The Cenozoic paleoenvironment of the Arctic
Ocean. Nature 441(7093):601-605.
Morison, J., R. Kwok, C. Peralta-Ferriz, M. Alkire, I. Rigor, R. Andersen , and M. Steele. 2012. Changing Arctic Ocean freshwater
pathways. Nature 481(7379):66-70.
Morison, J., M. Steele, and R. Andersen. 1998. Hydrography of the upper Arctic Ocean measured from the nuclear submarine
USS Pargo. Deep-Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 45(1):15-38.
Morrison, H., J. A. Curry, M. D. Shupe, and P. Zuidema. 2005. A new double-moment microphysics parameterization for ap-
plication in cloud and climate models. Part II: Single-column modeling of arctic clouds. Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences 62(6):1678-1693.
Mueller, D. R., W. F. Vincent, and M. O. Jeffries. 2003. Break-up of the largest Arctic ice shelf and associated loss of an epishelf
lake. Geophysical Research Letters 30(20).
Murray, M. S., H. Eicken, S. Starkweather, S. C. Gerlach, B. Evengrd, S. Gearheard, P. Schlosser, M. P. Karcher, D. McLennan, H.
Epstein, N. Bock, C. Juillet, S. Graben, B. Grimwood, D. Labont, K. Pletnikof, N. Scott, M. Sommerkorn, M. Vardy, V. Vitale,
I. Wagner, and J. Wandel. 2012. Responding to Arctic Environmental Change: Translating Our Growing Understand-
ing into a Research Agenda for Action. An International Study of Arctic Change (ISAC) Workshop. Kingston, Canada,
January 30-February 1, 2012. Stockholm, Sweden, and Fairbanks, AK: International Study of Arctic Change.
Myers-Smith, I. H., and D. S. Hik. 2013. Shrub canopies influence soil temperatures but not nutrient dynamics: An experi-
mental test of tundra snow-shrub interactions. Ecology and Evolution 3(11):3683-3700.
Myers, S. L. 2013. Arctic Council adds 6 nations as observer states, including China. New York Times, May 15.
Nash, R. F. 2001. Wilderness and the American Mind: Yale University Press.
Newton, R., P. Schlosser, D. G. Martinson, and W. Maslowski. 2008. Freshwater distribution in the Arctic Ocean: Simulation
with a high-resolution model and model-data comparison. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 113(C5).
Nghiem, S. V., D. K. Hall, T. L. Mote, M. Tedesco, M. R. Albert, K. Keegan, C. A. Shuman, N. E. DiGirolamo, and G. Neumann. 2012.
The extreme melt across the Greenland ice sheet in 2012. Geophysical Research Letters 39.
Nick, F. M., A. Vieli, I. M. Howat, and I. Joughin. 2009. Large-scale changes in Greenland outlet glacier dynamics triggered at
the terminus. Nature Geoscience 2(2):110-114.
Nielsen, M. 2011. Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science: Princeton University Press.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2012. U.S. Commercial Landings. U.S. Domestic Landings, by Region, and by State,
2011, and 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division. Available at https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.
gov/Assets/commercial/fus/fus12/02_commercial2012.pdf, accessed June 11, 2014.
Noongwook, G., H. P. Huntington, J. C. George, and N. V. Savoonga. 2007. Traditional knowledge of the bowhead whale
(Balaena mysticetus) around St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Arctic 60(1):47-54.
181

Notz, D., F. A. Haumann, H. Haak, J. H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke. 2013. Arctic sea-ice evolution as modeled by Max Planck
Institute for Meteorologys Earth system model. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 5(2):173-194.
NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Frontiers in Polar Biology in the Genomic Era. Washington, DC: The National Acad-
emies Press.
NRC. 2007. Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An assessment of U.S. needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
NRC. 2009. Observing Weather, and Climate from the Ground Up: A Nationwide Network of Networks. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2011. Critical Infrastructure for Ocean Research and Societal Needs in 2030. Washington, D.C.: The National Acad-
emies Press.
NRC. 2012a. Lessons and Legacies of International Polar Year: 2007-2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2012b. Seasonal to Decadal Predictions of Arctic Sea Ice: Challenges and Strategies. Washington, D.C The National
Academies Press.
NRC. 2013. Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2014a. Opportunities to Use Remote Sensing in Understanding Permafrost and Related Ecological Characteristics:
Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2014b. Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OGJ Editors. 2013. Rosneft, ExxonMobil reach milestones in strategic agreement. Oil & Gas Journal, June 21.
Onogi, K., J. Tslttsui, H. Koide, M. Sakamoto, S. Kobayashi, H. Hatsushika, T. Matsumoto, N. Yamazaki, H. Kaalhori, K. Takahashi,
S. Kadokura, K. Wada, K. Kato, R. Oyama, T. Ose, N. Mannoji, and R. Taira. 2007. The JRA-25 reanalysis. Journal of the
Meteorological Society of Japan 85(3):369-432.
Ott, R. A., M. A. Lee, W. E. Putman, O. K. Mason, G. T. Worum, and D. N. Burns. 2001. Bank Erosion and Large Woody Debris
Recruitment Along the Tanana River, Interior Alaska. Project No. NP-01-R9. Report prepared by Alaska Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, and Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. Forestry Program to the Alaska De-
partment of Environmental Conservation Division of Air and Water Quality. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Department of
Natural Resources.
Overland, J. E. 2014. Atmospheric science: Long-range linkage. Nature Climate Change 4:11-12.
Overland, J. E., J. A. Francis, E. Hanna, and M. Y. Wang. 2012. The recent shift in early summer Arctic atmospheric circulation.
Geophysical Research Letters 39.
Overpeck, J. T., B. L. Otto-Bliesner, G. H. Miller, D. R. Muhs, R. B. Alley, and J. T. Kiehl. 2006. Paleoclimatic evidence for future
ice-sheet instability and rapid sea-level rise. Science 311(5768):1747-1750.
Overpeck, J. T., M. Sturm, J. A. Francis, D. K. Perovich, M. C. Serreze, R. Benner, E. C. Carmack, F. S. C. III, S. C. Gerlach, L. C. Hamilton,
L. D. Hinzman, M. Holland, H. P. Huntington, J. R. Key, A. H. Lloyd, G. M. MacDonald, J. McFadden, D. Noone, T. D. Prowse,
P. Schlosser, and C. Vorosmarty. 2005. Arctic system on trajectory to new state. Eos, Transactions Ameran Geophysical
Union 86(34):309-314.
Palmer, T. N. 2013. Climate extremes and the role of dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
110(14):5281-5282.
Parent, G. J., S. Plourde, and J. Turgeon. 2012. Natural hybridization between Calanus finmarchicus and C. glacialis (Co-
pepoda) in the Arctic and Northwest Atlantic. Limnology and Oceanography 57(4):1057-1066.
Pavlov, P., J. I. Svendsen, and S. Indrelid. 2001. Human presence in the European Arctic nearly 40,000 years ago. Nature
413(6851):64-67.
Pearce, T., J. D. Ford, F. Duerden, B. Smit, M. Andrachuk, L. Berrang-Ford, and T. Smith. 2011. Advancing adaptation planning
for climate change in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR): A review and critique. Regional Environmental Change
11(1):1-17.
Perovich, D., S. Gerland, S. Hendricks, W. Meier, M. Nicolaus, J. Richter-Menge, and M. Tschudi. 2013. Sea Ice [in Arctic Report
Card 2013] http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/sea_ice.html, accessed June 11, 2014.
Perrette, M., A. Yool, G. D. Quartly, and E. E. Popova. 2011. Near-ubiquity of ice-edge blooms in the Arctic. Biogeosciences
8(2):515-524.
182

References
Peterson, B. J., R. M. Holmes, J. W. McClelland, C. J. Vorosmarty, R. B. Lammers, A. I. Shiklomanov, I. A. Shiklomanov, and S.

Rahmstorf. 2002. Increasing river discharge to the Arctic Ocean. Science 298(5601):2171-2173.
Petoukhov, V., S. Rahmstorf, S. Petri, and H. J. Schellnhuber. 2013. Quasiresonant amplification of planetary waves, and
recent Northern Hemisphere weather extremes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 110(14):5336-5341.
Pfirman, S., C. Fowler, B. Tremblay, and R. Newton. 2009. The last Arctic sea ice refuge. The Circle 4:6-8.
Pfirman, S., K. Hoff, B. Tremblay, and C. Fowler. 2008. Creating Arctic sea ice protected areas? Presented at American Geo-
physical Union Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #U13C-0075, San Francisco, California.
Pfirman, S., R. Newton, C. Fowler, and B. Tremblay. 2010a. Arctic sea ice formation, melting, and advection: 1980s to 2000s.
Presented at International Polar Year Oslo Science Conference, Oslo, Norway.
Pfirman, S., R. Newton, C. Fowler, and B. Tremblay. 2010b. Formation and melting of alien Arctic sea ice. Presented at State
of the Arctic 2010, Miami, Florida.
Phillips, T., H. Rajaram, W. Colgan, K. Steffen, and W. Abdalati. 2013. Evaluation of cryo-hydrologic warming as an explana-
tion for increased ice velocities in the wet snow zone, Sermeq Avannarleq, West Greenland. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Earth Surface 118(3):1241-1256.
Pickart, R. S., L. M. Schulze, G. W. K. Moore, M. A. Charette, K. R. Arrigo, G. van Dijken, and S. L. Danielson. 2013. Long-term
trends of upwelling and impacts on primary productivity in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part I:
Oceanographic Research Papers 79:106-121.
Pickart, R. S., M. A. Spall, G. W. K. Moore, T. J. Weingartner, R. A. Woodgate, K. Aagaard, and K. Shimada. 2011. Upwelling in the
Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Atmospheric forcing and local versus non-local response. Progress in Oceanography 88:78-100.
Pinkel, R. 2005. Near-inertial wave propagation in the western Arctic. Journal of Physical Oceanography 35(5):645-665.
Pistone, K., I. Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan. 2014. Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing
Arctic sea ice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1318201111.
Plueddemann, A. J., A. L. Kukulya, R. Stokey, and L. Freitag. 2012. Autonomous underwater vehicle operations beneath
coastal sea ice. IEEE-ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 17(1):54-64.
Pokiak, D. 2012. Surviving with Tuktu (caribou). Rangifer 32(Special Issue 20):83-84.
Polyakov, I. V., V. A. Alexeev, I. M. Ashik, S. Bacon, A. Beszczynska-Moller, E. C. Carmack, I. A. Dmitrenko, L. Fortier, J. C. Gascard, E.
Hansen, J. Holemann, V. V. Ivanov, T. Kikuchi, S. Kirillov, Y. D. Lenn, F. A. McLaughlin, J. Piechura, I. Repina, L. A. Timokhov,
W. Walczowski, and R. Woodgate. 2011. Fate of early 2000s Arctic warm water pulse. Bulletin of the American Meteo-
rological Society 92(5):561-566.
Polyakov, I. V., A. V. Pnyushkov, and L. A. Timokhov. 2012. Warming of the Intermediate Atlantic Water of the Arctic Ocean
in the 2000s. Journal of Climate 25(23):8362-8370.
Polyakov, I. V., L. A. Timokhov, V. A. Alexeev, S. Bacon, I. A. Dmitrenko, L. Fortier, I. E. Frolov, J. C. Gascard, E. Hansen, V. V. Ivanov,
S. Laxon, C. Mauritzen, D. Perovich, K. Shimada, H. L. Simmons, V. T. Sokolov, M. Steele, and J. Toolen. 2010. Arctic Ocean
warming contributes to reduced polar ice cap. Journal of Physical Oceanography 40(12):2743-2756.
Post, E., U. S. Bhatt, C. M. Bitz, J. F. Brodie, T. L. Fulton, M. Hebblewhite, J. Kerby, S. J. Kutz, I. Stirling, and D. A. Walker. 2013.
Ecological consequences of sea-ice decline. Science 341(6145):519-524.
Post, E., M. C. Forchhammer, M. S. Bret-Harte, T. V. Callaghan, T. R. Christensen, B. Elberling, A. D. Fox, O. Gilg, D. S. Hik, T. T. Hoye,
R. A. Ims, E. Jeppesen, D. R. Klein, J. Madsen, A. D. McGuire, S. Rysgaard, D. E. Schindler, I. Stirling, M. P. Tamstorf, N. J. C.
Tyler, R. van der Wal, J. Welker, P. A. Wookey, N. M. Schmidt, and P. Aastrup. 2009. Ecological dynamics across the Arctic
associated with recent climate change. Science 325(5946):1355-1358.
Price, S. F., A. J. Payne, G. A. Catania, and T. A. Neumann. 2008. Seasonal acceleration of inland ice via longitudinal coupling
to marginal ice. Journal of Glaciology 54(185):213-219.
Proshutinsky, A., K. Dethloff, R. Doescher, J. C. Gascard, and F. Kauker. 2008. Toward reducing uncertainties in Arctic climate
simulations. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 89(16):150-152.
183

Proshutinsky, A., M.-L. Timmermans, I. Ashik, A. Beszczynska-Moeller, E. Carmack, I. Frolov, R. Krishfield, F. McLaughlin, J.
Morison, I. Polyakov, K. Shimada, V. Sokolov, M. Steele, J. Toole,and R. Woodgate. 2010. The Arctic Ocean. In J. Blunden,
D. S. Arndt, and M. O. Baringer, eds., State of the Climate in 2010, pp. S145-148. Bulletin of the American Meteorologi-
cal Society 91(6).
Pulsifer, P., S. Gearheard, H. Huntington, M. A. Parsons, C. McNeave, and H. McCann. 2012. The role of data management in
engaging communities in Arctic research: Overview of the Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the
Arctic (ELOKA). Polar Geography 35(3-4):271-290.
Pulsifer, P. L., H. P. Huntington, and G. T. Pecl. 2014. Introduction: Local and traditional knowledge and data management
in the Arctic. Polar Geography 37(1):1-4.
Pundsack, J., R. Bell, D. Broderson, G. C. Fox, J. Dozier, J. Helly, W. Li, P. Morin, M. Parsons, A. Roberts, C. Tweedie, and C. Yang.
2013. Report on Workshop on Cyberinfrastructure for Polar Sciences. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Polar Geo-
spatial Center.
Quadfasel, D., A. Sy, D. Wells, and A. Tunik. 1991. Warming in the Arctic. Nature 350(6317):385-385.
Rainville, L., and R. A. Woodgate. 2009. Observations of internal wave generation in the seasonally ice-free Arctic. Geophysi-
cal Research Letters 36.
Rampal, P., J. Weiss, and D. Marsan. 2009. Positive trend in the mean speed and deformation rate of Arctic sea ice, 1979-2007.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 114.
Rawlins, M. A., D. J. Nicolsky, K. C. McDonald, and V. E. Romanovsky. 2013. Simulating soil freeze/thaw dynamics with an
improved pan-Arctic water balance model. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 5(4):659-675.
Rawlins, M. A., M. Steele, M. M. Holland, J. C. Adam, J. E. Cherry, J. A. Francis, P. Y. Groisman, L. D. Hinzman, T. G. Huntington,
D. L. Kane, J. S. Kimball, R. Kwok, R. B. Lammers, C. M. Lee, D. P. Lettenmaier, K. C. McDonald, E. Podest, J. W. Pundsack, B.
Rudels, M. C. Serreze, A. Shiklomanov, O. Skagseth, T. J. Troy, C. J. Vorosmarty, M. Wensnahan, E. F. Wood, R. Woodgate, D.
Q. Yang, K. Zhang, and T. J. Zhang. 2010. Analysis of the Arctic System for Freshwater Cycle Intensification: Observa-
tions and Expectations. Journal of Climate 23(21):5715-5737.
Raymo, M. E., and J. X. Mitrovica. 2012. Collapse of polar ice sheets during the stage 11 interglacial. Nature 483(7390):453-456.
Rayner, S., C. Heyward, T. Kruger, N. Pidgeon, C. Redgwell, and J. Savulescu. 2013. The Oxford Principles. Climatic Change
121(3):499-512.
Rember, R. D., and J. H. Trefry. 2004. Increased concentrations of dissolved trace metals and organic carbon during snowmelt
in rivers of the Alaskan Arctic. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 68(3):477-489.
Renaud, P. E., J. Berge, O. Varpe, O. J. Lonne, J. Nahrgang, C. Ottesen, and I. Hallanger. 2012. Is the poleward expansion by
Atlantic cod and haddock threatening native polar cod, Boreogadus saida? Polar Biology 35(3):401-412.
Rennermalm, A. K., J. Mioduszewski, and S. Moustafa. 2012. Breaking the ice: Theorizing the mechanisms of Arctic thaw.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 93(42):416.
Rennert, K. J., G. Roe, J. Putkonen, and C. M. Bitz. 2009. Soil thermal and ecological impacts of rain on snow events in the
Circumpolar Arctic. Journal of Climate 22(9):2302-2315.
Revkin, A. 1992. Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast. New York, NY: Abbeville Press.
Richter-Menge, J. A., D. K. Perovich, B. C. Elder, K. Claffey, I. Rigor, and M. Ortmeyer. 2006. Ice mass balance buoys: A tool for
measuring and attributing changes in the thickness of the Arctic sea ice cover. Annals of Glaciology 44:205-210.
Rignot, E., and P. Kanagaratnam. 2006. Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland ice sheet. Science
311(5763):986-990.
Robards, M. D. 2013. Resilience of international policies to changing social-ecological systems: Arctic shipping in the
Bering Strait. In Arctic Resilience Interim Report 2013. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environmental Institute and
Stockholm Resilience Center.
Roberts, A., L. D. Hinzman, J. E. Walsh, M. Holland, J. Cassano, R. Dscher, H. Mitsudera, and A. Sumi. 2010. A Science Plan for
Regional Arctic System Modeling. A report to the National Science Foundation from the International Arctic Science
Community. International Arctic Research Center Technical Papers 10-0001. Fairbanks: International Arctic Research
Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Robock, A. 2004. Climatic impact of volcanic emissions. In R. S. J. Sparks and C. J. Hawkesworth, eds., State of the Planet.
Geophysical Monograph 150, IUGG Volume 19, pp. 125-134. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.
184

References
Romanovsky, V. E., S. L. Smith, and H. H. Christiansen. 2010. Permafrost thermal state in the polar Northern Hemisphere
during the International Polar Year 2007-2009: A synthesis. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 21(2):106-116.
Roslin, T., H. Wirta, T. Hopkins, B. Hardwick, and G. Varkonyi. 2013. Indirect Interactions in the High Arctic. PLOS One 8(6).
Royal Society. 2009. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. London: Royal Society.
Rybczynski, N., J. C. Gosse, C. R. Harington, R. A. Wogelius, A. J. Hidy, and M. Buckley. 2013. Mid-Pliocene warm-period deposits
in the High Arctic yield insight into camel evolution. Nature Communications 4(1550). doi: 10.1038/ncomms2516.
Sagen, H., S. Sandven, P. F. Worcester, A. Beszczynska-Mller, E. Fahrbach, and A. K. Morozov. 2011. The Fram Strait acoustic
system for tomography, navigation, and passive listening. Presented at 4th International Conference on Underwater
Acoustic Measurements: Technologies, and Results, Heraklion, Greece.
Saha, S., S. Moorthi, H. L. Pan, X. R. Wu, J. D. Wang, S. Nadiga, P. Tripp, R. Kistler, J. Woollen, D. Behringer, H. X. Liu, D. Stokes, R.
Grumbine, G. Gayno, J. Wang, Y. T. Hou, H. Y. Chuang, H. M. H. Juang, J. Sela, M. Iredell, R. Treadon, D. Kleist, P. Van Delst, D.
Keyser, J. Derber, M. Ek, J. Meng, H. L. Wei, R. Q. Yang, S. Lord, H. Van den Dool, A. Kumar, W. Q. Wang, C. Long, M. Chelliah,
Y. Xue, B. Y. Huang, J. K. Schemm, W. Ebisuzaki, R. Lin, P. P. Xie, M. Y. Chen, S. T. Zhou, W. Higgins, C. Z. Zou, Q. H. Liu, Y. Chen,
Y. Han, L. Cucurull, R. W. Reynolds, G. Rutledge, and M. Goldberg. 2010. The NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 91(8):1015-1057.
SAON (Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks). 2011. Plan for the Implementation Phase of SAON. Report to the Arc-
tic Council, and the International Arctic Science Committee. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme Oslo,
Norway.
Schauer, I., A. Beszcyzynska-Mller, W. Walczowski, E. Fahrbach, J. Piechura, and E. Hansen. 2008. Variation of measured
heat flow through the Fram Strait between 1996 and 2007. In R. R. Dickson, R., J. Meincke, and P. Rhines, eds., Arctic-
Subarctic Fluxes: Defining the Role of the Northern Seas in Climate, pp. 65-85. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Schirrmeister, L., G. Grosse, S. Wetterich, P. P. Overduin, J. Strauss, E. A. G. Schuur, and H. W. Hubberten. 2011. Fossil organic
matter characteristics in permafrost deposits of the northeast Siberian Arctic. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Biogeosciences 116.
Schlosser, P., G. Bnisch, M. Rhein, and R. Bayer. 1991. Reduction of deepwater formation in the Greenland Sea during the
1980s: Evidence from tracer data. Science 251(4997):1054-1056.
Schlosser, P., J. H. Swift, D. Lewis, and S. L. Pfirman. 1995. The role of the large-scale Arctic Ocean circulation in the transport
of contaminants. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 42(6):1341-1367.
Schmidt, G. A., J. H. Jungclaus, C. M. Ammann, E. Bard, P. Braconnot, T. J. Crowley, G. Delaygue, F. Joos, N. A. Krivova, R. Muscheler,
B. L. Otto-Bliesner, J. Pongratz, D. T. Shindell, S. K. Solanki, F. Steinhilber, and L. E. A. Vieira. 2011. Climate forcing recon-
structions for use in PMIP simulations of the last millennium (v1.0). Geoscientific Model Development 4(1):33-45.
Schneider, D. P., C. M. Ammann, B. L. Otto-Bliesner, and D. S. Kaufman. 2009. Climate response to large, high-latitude and
low-latitude volcanic eruptions in the Community Climate System Model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmo-
spheres 114.
Schoof, C. 2010. Ice-sheet acceleration driven by melt supply variability. Nature 468(7325):803-806.
Schroder, D., G. Heinemann, and S. Willmes. 2011. The impact of a thermodynamic sea-ice module in the COSMO numerical
weather prediction model on simulations for the Laptev Sea, Siberian Arctic. Polar Research 30.
Schuur, E. A. G., J. G. Vogel, K. G. Crummer, H. Lee, J. O. Sickman, and T. E. Osterkamp. 2009. The effect of permafrost thaw on
old carbon release and net carbon exchange from tundra. Nature 459(7246):556-559.
Screen, J. A., C. Deser, I. Simmonds, and R. Tomas. 2013. Atmospheric impacts of Arctic sea-ice loss, 1979-2009: Separating
forced change from atmospheric internal variability. Climate Dynamics. doi:10.1007/s00382-013-1830-9.
Screen, J. A., and I. Simmonds. 2013. Exploring links between Arctic amplification, and mid-latitude weather. Geophysical
Research Letters 40(5):959-964.
Seabert, T., S. Pal, E. M. Krummel, J. M. Blais, P. Imbeault, M. A. Robidoux, and F. Haman. 2013. Dietary practices in isolated
First Nations communities of northern Canada: Combined isotopic and lipid markers provide a good qualitative
assessment of store-bought vs locally harvested foods consumption. Nutrition & Diabetes 3 (October 21): e92. doi:
10.1038/nutd.2013.34
Sejersen, F. 2004. Horizons of sustainability in Greenland: Inuit landscapes of memory and vision. Arctic Anthropology
41(1):71-89.
185

Semenchuk, P. R., B. Elberling, and E. J. Cooper. 2013. Snow cover and extreme winter warming events control flower abun-
dance of some, but not all species in high arctic Svalbard. Ecology and Evolution 3(8):2586-2599.
Serreze, M. C., A. P. Barrett, A. G. Slater, R. A. Woodgate, K. Aagaard, R. B. Lammers, M. Steele, R. Moritz, M. Meredith, and C. M.
Lee. 2006. The large-scale freshwater cycle of the Arctic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 111(C11).
Serreze, M. C., D. H. Bromwich, M. P. Clark, A. J. Etringer, T. J. Zhang, and R. Lammers. 2002. Large-scale hydro-climatology of
the terrestrial Arctic drainage system. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 108(D2).
Shadwick, E. H., T. Papakyriakou, A. E. F. Prowe, D. Leong, S. A. Moore, and H. Thomas. 2009. Carbon cycling in the Arctic
Archipelago: The export of Pacific carbon to the North Atlantic. Biogeosciences Discussions 6:971-994.
Shadwick, E. H., T. W. Trull, H. Thomas, and J. A. E. Gibson. 2013. Vulnerability of Polar Oceans to Anthropogenic Acidification:
Comparison of Arctic, and Antarctic Seasonal Cycles. Scientific Reports 3 (2339). doi: 10.1038/srep02339.
Shanley, C. S., G. P. Kofinas, and S. Pyare. 2013. Balancing the conservation of wildlife habitat with subsistence hunting ac-
cess: A geospatial-scenario planning framework. Landscape and Urban Planning 115:10-17.
Shapiro, B., A. J. Drummond, A. Rambaut, M. C. Wilson, P. E. Matheus, A. V. Sher, O. G. Pybus, M. T. P. Gilbert, I. Barnes, J. Binladen,
E. Willerslev, A. J. Hansen, G. F. Baryshnikov, J. A. Burns, S. Davydov, J. C. Driver, D. G. Froese, C. R. Harington, G. Keddie, P.
Kosintsev, M. L. Kunz, L. D. Martin, R. O. Stephenson, J. Storer, R. Tedford, S. Zimov, and A. Cooper. 2004. Rise and fall of
the Beringian steppe bison. Science 306(5701):1561-1565.
Shepherd, A., A. Hubbard, P. Nienow, M. King, M. McMillan, and I. Joughin. 2009. Greenland ice sheet motion coupled with
daily melting in late summer. Geophysical Research Letters 36(1):L01501.
Shiklomanov, A. I., and R. B. Lammers. 2011. River discharge. In J. Richter-Menge, M. O. Jeffries, and J. E. Overland, Arctic
Report Card 2011. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard, accessed June 11, 2014.
Shimada, K., F. McLaughlin, E. Carmack, A. Proshutinsky, S. Nishino, and M. Itoh. 2004. Penetration of the 1990s warm tem-
perature anomaly of Atlantic Water in the Canada Basin. Geophysical Research Letters 31(20).
Shroyer, E. L., and A. J. Plueddemann. 2012. Wind-driven modification of the Alaskan coastal current. Journal of Geophysi-
cal Research: Oceans 117.
Siegenthaler, U., T. F. Stocker, E. Monnin, D. Luthi, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, D. Raynaud, J. M. Barnola, H. Fischer, V. Mas-
son-Delmotte, and J. Jouzel. 2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science
310(5752):1313-1317.
Sigler, M. F., R. Harvey, J. Ashjian, M. W. Lomas, J. M. Napp, P. J. Stabeno, and T. I. V. Pelt. 2010. How does climate change affect
the Bering Sea ecosystem? Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 91(48):457-458.
Slezkine, Y. 1994. Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sluijs, A., S. Schouten, M. Pagani, M. Woltering, H. Brinkhuis, J. S. S. Damst, G. R. Dickens, M. Huber, G.-J. Reichart, R. Stein, J.
Matthiessen, L. J. Lourens, N. Pedentchouk, J. Backman, and K. Moran. 2006. Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures
during the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum. Nature 441(7093):610-613.
Small, D., E. Atallah, and J. Gyakum. 2011. Wind regimes along the Beaufort Sea coast favorable for strong wind events at
Tuktoyaktuk. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 50(6):1291-1306.
Soja, A. J., N. M. Tchebakova, N. H. F. French, M. D. Flannigan, H. H. Shugart, B. J. Stocks, A. I. Sukhinin, E. I. Parfenova, F. S. Chapin,
and P. W. Stackhouse. 2007. Climate-induced boreal forest change: Predictions versus current observations. Global
and Planetary Change 56(3-4):274-296.
Spada, G., J. L. Bamber, and R. T. W. L. Hurkmans. 2013. The gravitationally consistent sea- level fingerprint of future terrestrial
ice loss. Geophysical Research Letters 40(3):482-486.
Spall, M. A. 2013. On the circulation of Atlantic Water in the Arctic Ocean. Journal of Physical Oceanography 43:2352-2371.
Srokosz, M., M. Baringer, H. Bryden, S. Cunningham, T. Delworth, S. Lozier, J. Marotzke, and R. Sutton. 2012. Past, Present,
and Future Changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society 93(11):1663-1676.
St John, K. 2008. Cenozoic ice-rafting history of the central Arctic Ocean: Terrigenous sands on the Lomonosov Ridge.
Paleoceanography 23(1).
Statscewich, H., and T. Weingartner. 2012. A high-latitude modular autonomous power, control, and communication system
for application to high-frequency surface current mapping radars. Presented at Oceans 2012, Yeosu, South Korea.
186

References
Steele, M., and T. Boyd. 1998. Retreat of the cold halocline layer in the Arctic Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans
103(C5):10419-10435.
Stickley, C. E., K. St John, N. Koc, R. W. Jordan, S. Passchier, R. B. Pearce, and L. E. Kearns. 2009. Evidence for middle Eocene
Arctic sea ice from diatoms and ice-rafted debris. Nature 460(7253):376-U388.
Stien, A., L. E. Loe, A. Mysterud, T. Severinsen, J. Kohler, and R. Langvatn. 2010. Icing events trigger range displacement in a
high-arctic ungulate. Ecology 91(3):915-920.
Stroeve, J., M. Serreze, S. Drobot, S. Gearheard, M. Holland, J. Maslanik, W. Meier, and T. Scambos. 2008. Arctic sea ice extent
plummets in 2007. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 89(2):13-14.
Stroeve, J. C., V. Kattsov, A. Barrett, M. Serreze, T. Pavlova, M. Holland, and W. N. Meier. 2012. Trends in Arctic sea ice extent
from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations. Geophysical Research Letters 39.
Studinger, M., L. Koenig, S. Martin, and J. Sonntag. 2010. Operation Icebridge: Using instrumented aircraft to bridge the
observational gap between Icesat and Icesat-2. Presented at International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Sym-
posium (IGARSS), 2010 IEEE International, Honolulu, HI, July 25-30, 2010.
Sturm, M., C. Racine, and K. Tape. 2001. Climate change: Increasing shrub abundance in the Arctic. Nature 411(6837):546-547.
Sturm, M., J. Schimel, G. Michaelson, J. M. Welker, S. F. Oberbauer, G. E. Liston, J. Fahnestock, and V. E. Romanovsky. 2005. Winter
biological processes could help convert arctic tundra to shrubland. Bioscience 55(1):17-26.
Sutherland, W.J., D. Spiegelhalter, and M. Burgman. 2013. Policy: twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims. Nature
503:335-337.
Svendsen, P. L., O. B. Andersen, and A. A. Nielsen. 2013. Acceleration of the Greenland ice sheet mass loss as observed by
GRACE: Confidence and sensitivity. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 364:24-29.
Syvitski, J. P. M. 2002. Sediment discharge variability in Arctic rivers: Implications for a warmer future. Polar Research
21(2):323-330.
Tang, Q. H., X. J. Zhang, X. H. Yang, and J. A. Francis. 2013. Cold winter extremes in northern continents linked to Arctic sea
ice loss. Environmental Research Letters 8(1).
Tape, K. D., P. L. Flint, B. W. Meixell, and B. V. Gaglioti. 2013. Inundation, sedimentation, and subsidence creates goose habitat
along the Arctic coast of Alaska. Environmental Research Letters 8(4).
Tarduno, J. A., D. B. Brinkman, P. R. Renne, R. D. Cottrell, H. Scher, and P. Castillo. 1998. Evidence for extreme climatic warmth
from Late Cretaceous Arctic vertebrates. Science 282(5397):2241-2244.
Tarnocai, C., J. G. Canadell, E. A. G. Schuur, P. Kuhry, G. Mazhitova, and S. Zimov. 2009. Soil organic carbon pools in the northern
circumpolar permafrost region. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23.
Tedesco, M., X. Fettweis, T. Mote, J. Wahr, P. Alexander, J. E. Box, and B. Wouters. 2013. Evidence and analysis of 2012 Greenland
records from spaceborne observations, a regional climate model and reanalysis data. The Cryosphere 7:615-630.
Thewissen, J. G. M., J. George, C. Rosa, and T. Kishida. 2011. Olfaction and brain size in the bowhead whale (Balaena mysti-
cetus). Marine Mammal Science 27(2):282-294.
Thienpont, J. R., D. Johnson, H. Nesbitt, S. V. Kokelj, M. F. J. Pisaric, and J. P. Smol. 2012. Arctic coastal freshwater ecosystem
responses to a major saltwater intrusion: A landscape-scale palaeolimnological analysis. Holocene 22(12):1451-1460.
Tilmes, S., A. Jahn, J. E. Kay, M. Holland, and J.-F. Lamarque. 2014. Can regional climate engineering save the summer Arctic
sea-ice? Geophysical Research Letters 41(3):880-885. doi: 10.1002/2013GL058731
Timmermans, M. L., and P. Winsor. 2013. Scales of horizontal density structure in the Chukchi Sea surface layer. Continental
Shelf Research 52:39-45.
Tonn, B. E., P. Zambrano, and S. Moore. 2001. Community networks or networked communities? Social Science Computer
Review 19(2):201-212.
Turner, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L.
Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(14):8074-8079.
Turner, D. P., W. D. Ritts, W. B. Cohen, S. T. Gower, S. W. Running, M. S. Zhao, M. H. Costa, A. A. Kirschbaum, J. M. Ham, S. R. Saleska,
and D. E. Ahl. 2006. Evaluation of MODIS NPP and GPP products across multiple biomes. Remote Sensing of Environ-
ment 102(3-4):282-292.
187

Turnpenny, J., D. Russel, and T. Rayner. 2013. The complexity of evidence for sustainable development policy: analysing
the boundary work of the UK Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers 38(4):586-598.
Tyler, C. 2013. Top 20 things scientists need to know about policy-making. The Guardian, December 2.
U.S. Navy. 2009. U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Navy.
UNOLS. 2013. Vessel Usage Survey Statistics. University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System.
USCG. 2013. Presentation by CMDR James Houck, USCG Seventeenth District. Presented at Nome Maritime Symposium,
Nome, Alaska.
USGCRP. 2009. Global Change Impacts in the United States. US Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC.
Van Cleve, K., C. T. Dyrness, L. A. Vierech, and J. Fox. 1983. Taiga ecosystems in interior Alaska. Bioscience 33(1):39-44.
Van Cleve, K., and L. A. Vierech. 1981. Forest succession in relation to nutrient cycling in the boreal forest of Alaska. In D. C.
West, H. H. Shugart, and D. B. Botkin, eds., Forest Succession, Concepts, and Application. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Van Noorden, R. 2012. Global mobility: Science on the move. Nature 490:326-329.
Vandermark, D., J. A. Tarduno, and D. B. Brinkman. 2007. A fossil champsosaur population from the high Arctic: Implica-
tions for Late Cretaceous paleotemperatures. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 248(1-2):49-59.
Vihma, T. 2014. Effects of Arctic sea ice decline on weather and climate: A review. Surveys in Geophysics (in press).
Vincent, W. F., T. V. Callaghan, D. Dahl-Jensen, M. Johansson, K. M. Kovacs, C. Michel, T. Prowse, J. D. Reist, and M. Sharp. 2011.
Ecological implications of changes in the Arctic cryosphere. Ambio 40:87-99.
Voorhees, H. 2010. Emplacement and Cosmobility: Rural-urban migration and indigenous futures in Alaska. Alaska Journal
of Anthropology 8(2):65-74.
Wade, N. 2013. 24,000-Year-Old Body Shows Kinship to Europeans and American Indians.
Wadhams, P. 2012. The use of autonomous underwater vehicles to map the variability of under-ice topography. Ocean
Dynamics 62(3):439-447.
Walker, B., C. S. Hollin, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological
systems. Ecology and Society 9(2).
Walker, D. A., U. S. Bhatt, H. E. Epstein, P. A. Bieniek, J. C. Comiso, G. V. Frost, J. Pinzon, M. K. Raynolds, and C. J. Tucker. 2012.
Changing Arctic tundra vegetation biomass and greenness. In J. Blunden and D. S. Arndt, eds., State of the Climate
in 2011, pp 138-139. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 93(7).
Wall, K. 2013. China seeks greater influence in Arctic region: A relative latecome, Beijing cozies up to Nordic nations in
a bid to increase its influence in a region rich in oil and natural gas reserves. South China Morning Post, June 25.
Wang, M. Y., and J. E. Overland. 2009. A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years? Geophysical Research Letters 36.
Wanner, H., O. Solomina, M. Grosjean, S. P. Ritz, and M. Jetel. 2011. Structure and origin of Holocene cold events. Quaternary
Science Reviews 30(21-22):3109-3123.
Wassmann, P., C. M. Duarte, S. Agusti, and M. K. Sejr. 2011. Footprints of climate change in the Arctic marine ecosystem.
Global Change Biology 17(2):1235-1249.
Weatherhead, E., S. Gearheard, and R. G. Barry. 2010. Changes in weather persistence: Insight from Inuit knowledge. Global
Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions 20(3):523-528.
Weichselgartner, J., and C. A. Marandino. 2012. Priority knowledge for marine environments: challenges at the scienceso-
ciety nexus. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(3):323-330.
West, J., and G. K. Hovelsrud. 2008. Climate change in northern Norway: Toward an understanding of socio-economic
vulnerability of natural resource dependent sectors and communities. Report 2008:4. Oslo: CICERO.
West, J. J., and G. K. Hovelsrud. 2010. Cross-scale adaptation challenges in the coastal fisheries: Findings from Lebesby,
Northern Norway. Arctic 63(3):338-354.
Westlien, E. 2010. Science of the U.S. Arctic Outer Continental Shelf. Volume 1. Anchorage, AK: Shell Exploration and Pro-
duction Company.
White, D., L. Hinzman, L. Alessa, J. Cassano, M. Chambers, K. Falkner, J. Francis, W. J. Gutowski, M. Holland, R. M. Holmes, H.
Huntington, D. Kane, A. Kliskey, C. Lee, J. McClelland, B. Peterson, T. S. Rupp, F. Straneo, M. Steele, R. Woodgate, D. Yang, K.
Yoshikawa, and T. Zhang. 2007. The Arctic freshwater system: Changes and impacts. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Biogeosciences 112(G4).
188

References
Wiese, F. K., W. J. Wiseman, and T. I. Van Pelt. 2012. Bering Sea linkages. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Ocean-
ography 65-70:2-5.
Willerslev, E., E. Cappellini, W. Boomsma, R. Nielsen, M. B. Hebsgaard, T. B. Brand, M. Hofreiter, M. Bunce, H. N. Poinar, D. Dahl-
Jensen, S. Johnsen, J. P. Steffensen, O. Bennike, J. L. Schwenninger, R. Nathan, S. Armitage, C. J. de Hoog, V. Alfimov, M.
Christl, J. Beer, R. Muscheler, J. Barker, M. Sharp, K. E. H. Penkman, J. Haile, P. Taberlet, M. T. P. Gilbert, A. Casoli, E. Campani,
and M. J. Collins. 2007. Ancient biomolecules from deep ice cores reveal a forested Southern Greenland. Science
317(5834):111-114.
Wood, R., and T. P. Ackerman. 2013. Defining success and limits of field experiments to test geoengineering by marine
cloud brightening. Climatic Change 121(3):459-472.
Woodgate, R. A., T. J. Weingartner, and R. Lindsay. 2012. Observed increases in Bering Strait oceanic fluxes from the Pacific to
the Arctic from 2001 to 2011 and their impacts on the Arctic Ocean water column. Geophysical Research Letters 39.
WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). 2012. Last Ice Area. World Wide Fund for Nature Global Arctic Programme, http://
awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lia_factsheet_2011_11_letter.pdf.
Yang, J. Y. 2006. The seasonal variability of the Arctic Ocean Ekman transport and its role in the mixed layer heat and salt
fluxes. Journal of Climate 19(20):5366-5387.
Zanchettin, D., O. Bothe, H. F. Graf, S. J. Lorenz, J. Luterbacher, C. Timmreck, and J. H. Jungclaus. 2013. Background conditions
influence the decadal climate response to strong volcanic eruptions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
118(10):4090-4106.
Zhang, J., C. Ashjian, R. Campbell, V. Hill, Y. H. Spitz, and M. Steele. 2013a. The great 2012 Arctic Ocean summer cyclone
enhanced biological productivity on the shelves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans.
Zhang, J. L., R. Lindsay, A. Schweiger, and M. Steele. 2014. The impact of an intense summer cyclone on 2012 Arctic sea ice
retreat. Geophysical Research Letters 40(4):720-726.
Zhang, T. J. 2005. Influence of the seasonal snow cover on the ground thermal regime: An overview. Reviews of Geophys-
ics 43(4).
Zhang, X. D., J. X. He, J. Zhang, I. Polyakov, R. Gerdes, J. Inoue, and P. L. Wu. 2013b. Enhanced poleward moisture transport
and amplified northern high-latitude wetting trend. Nature Climate Change 3(1):47-51.
Zwally, H. J., J. C. Comiso, C. L. Parkinson, D. J. Cavalieri, and P. Gloersen. 2002. Variability of Antarctic sea ice 1979-1998.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 107(C5).
189


APPENDIX A
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ABoVE Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment

ACADIS Advanced Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service
ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers
AIRS Atmospheric Infrared Radiation Sounder
AMOC Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
AMSR-E Advanced Microwave Scanning RadiometerEarth Observing System
AMSU Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit
AOFB autonomous ocean flux buoys
AON Arctic Observing Network
APECS Association of Polar Early Career Scientists
ARM Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
AUV autonomous underwater vehicle
CDR carbon dioxide removal

CI cyberinfrastructure
CMIP5 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project-5
CODAR coastal ocean dynamics applications radar
CORS Continuously Operating Reference Station
CRA Collaborative Research Action
CTD conductivity, temperature, depth
DBO Distributed Biological Observatory

DoD Department of Defense
DOE U. S. Department of Energy
ELOKA Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge in the Arctic

EOL Earth Observing Laboratory
ET evapotranspiration
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
GCM global climate model

GrIS Greenland Ice Sheet
191

APPENDIX A
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

GPM Global Precipitation Measurement
GPS Global Positioning Satellite
GRAV-D Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum
HALIP High Arctic Large Igneous Province
IARPC Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee

IASC International Arctic Science Committee
IASSA International Arctic Social Sciences Association
InSAR Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar
IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing System
IMB Ice Mass Balance
IMO international maritime organization
IPY International Polar Year
IRD ice-rafted debris
ITP ice-tethered profilers
LEDAPS Landsat Ecosystem Disturbance Adaptive Processing System

LIP large igneous province
LTER Long-Term Ecological Research
MIS Marine Isotope Stage

MODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research
NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
NGEE Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiment
NGS National Geodetic Survey
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRC National Research Council
NSF National Science Foundation
NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center
NSSI North Slope Science Initiative
OOI Ocean Observing Initiative
192

Appendix A
PacMARS Pacific Marine Arctic Regional Synthesis

PETM Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
PPF polar profiling floats
PV photovoltaic
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway

ROV remotely operated vehicle
SAON Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks

SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar
SCTF Scientific Cooperation Task Force
SEARCH Study of Environmental ARctic CHange
SEES Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability
SHEBA Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean
SLiCA Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic
SMAP Soil Moisture Active Passive
SOAR Synthesis of Arctic Research
SRM solar radiation management
UAV unmanned aerial vehicle

UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
USARC U.S. Arctic Research Commission
WOC World Ocean Council
193


APPENDIX B
Speaker and Interviewee

Acknowledgments
The committee is grateful to the following people who provided input during our
workshops in Anchorage, Alaska, and Ottawa, Ontario, and those who participated in
an interview.
Anchorage Workshop Participants Jenny Hutchings, University of Alaska

Fairbanks
Waleed Abdalati, University of Colorado, Denny Lassuy, North Slope Science
Boulder Initiative
Elizabeth Alter, City University of New York Jim Lovvorn, Southern Illinois University
Douglas Anderson, Brown University Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University
Marcel Babin, Universit Laval Philip Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Matthew Berman, University of Alaska Molly McCammon, Alaska Ocean
Anchorage Observing System
Lawson Brigham, University of Alaska Terri Morganson, ESRI
Fairbanks Tad Pfeffer, University of Colorado
F. Stuart Chapin, University of Alaska Karyn Rode, U.S. Geological Survey
Fairbanks Natalia Shakhov, University of Alaska
Lou Codispoti, University of Maryland Fairbanks
Center for Environmental Science Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice
Doug DeMaster, National Oceanic and Data Center
Atmospheric Administration Matthew Sturm, University of Alaska
Jack Dibb, University of New Hampshire Fairbanks
Karl Erb, National Science Foundation Mead Treadwell, Government of Alaska
(retired) Kate Turcotte, University of Maine
Ben Fitzhugh, University of Washington Fran Ulmer, U.S. Arctic Research
Andrew Fountain, Portland State Commission
University Daniel White, University of Alaska
Craig George, North Slope Borough Fairbanks
Bernard Hallet, University of Washington Francis Wiese, North Pacific Research Board
Lawrence Hamilton, University of New Dee Williams, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Hampshire Management
Leslie Holland-Bartels, U.S. Geological Cathy Wilson, Los Alamos National
Survey Laboratory
195

APPENDIX B
Ottawa Workshop Participants Jocelyn Joe-Strack, Campagne and

Aishihik First Nation
Andrew Applejohn, Government of the Claude Labine, Campbell Scientific
Northwest Territories Jean-Phillipe Lacasse, Public Safety
Anne Barker, National Research Council, Canada
Government of Canada Caroline Larrive, Ouranos
Elizabeth Boston, Canadian Natural Danielle Lapont, Aboriginal Affairs and
Sciences and Engineering Research Northern Development, Government of
Council Canada
Chris Burn, Carleton University Antoni Lewkowicz, Ottawa University
Christopher Cornish, Health Canada Susan MacMillan, Privy Council Office,
Trse De Groote, Canadian Social Government of Canada
Sciences and Humanities Research Scott Nickels, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
Council John Nightingale, Vancouver Aquarium
Chris Derksen, Environment Canada Aynslie Ogden, Yukon Government
Ranier Engelhardt, Public Health Agency of Wayne Pollard, McGill University
Canada Martin Sharp, University of Alberta
John England, University of Alberta Duane Smith, Inuit Circumpolar Council
Gail Fondahl, University of Northern British Darielle Talarico, Yukon Chamber of
Columbia Commerce
Phillipe Gachon, Environment Canada Mary Ellen Thomas, Government of
Eric Gagn, Environment Canada Nunavut
Dave Gillis, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Warwick Vincent, Universit Laval
Jacqueline Gonalves, Canadian Coast
Guard Representatives from the Embassies
Mark Graham, Canadian Museum of of Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway,
Nature Republic of Korea, Russian Federation,
Brian Gray, Natural Resources Canada Spain, Switzerland, and the United
Jean Paul Handrigan, Transport and States and from the British High
Infrastructure Canada Commission
Robert Huebert, University of Calgary
196

Appendix B
Interviewees Larry Mayer, University of New Hampshire

Steve Meacham, National Science
David Bromwich, The Ohio State University Foundation
Eddy Carmack, Fisheries and Ocean Claire Parkinson, National Aeronautics and
Canada Space Administration
Bernard Coakley, University of Alaska Joel Rowland, Los Alamos National
Fairbanks Laboratory
Clara Deser, National Center for Mark Serreze, National Snow and Ice Data
Atmospheric Research Center
Hajo Eicken, University of Alaska Fairbanks Matthew Shupe, National Oceanic and
Jackie Grebmeier, University of Maryland Atmospheric Administration
Center for Environmental Science Mike Steele, University of Washington
Paul Holthus, World Ocean Council Martin Visbeck, GEOMAR Helmholtz-
Brendan Kelly, Office of Science and Zentrum fr Ozeanforschung Kiel
Technology Policy
Igor Krupnik, Smithsonian Institution
Candace Major, National Science
Foundation
197


APPENDIX C
Summary of Questionnaire
Responses
The committee carefully considered multiple forms of community input (see also Ap-
pendix B). One of them was an informal online questionnaire1 distributed to a wide
audience via newsletters and e-mail distribution lists. The questionnaire was distrib-
uted to various NRC boards and committees (including the Polar Research Board,
Ocean Studies Board, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Space Studies
Board, Board on Environmental Change and Society, and Marine Board); e-mail distri-
bution lists such as ArcticInfo, Arctic Monitor, IASSA, CLIMLIST, CRYOLIST, Paleoclimate
List, APECS, and USARC Arctic Update; the U.S. IASC Delegation; and other groups,
blogs, and online networks. The input collected was not used in a statistical or quan-
titative analysis. Rather, the comments provided insights into whether the committee
had overlooked some aspects of emerging research. Multiple sources of information
were considered in the drafting of this report.
Each respondent was asked to answer a few background questions about career stage,
scientific discipline, and sector. Respondents were then asked to address the following
questions about the future of Arctic research:
Within your own discipline, please list up to three emerging scientific ques-
tions that will enhance our understanding of the Arctic over the next 20 years.
Please list up to three ideas or needed improvements for technology, infra-
structure, or innovative logistics that you believe will play a major role in Arctic
Research over the next 20 years.
Please share any additional comments or information you wish the committee
to consider.
A total of 330 complete responses were received from a wide range of disciplines,
expertise, and geographical locations (Figures C.1 through C.4). The following figures
show that there was a range of response types, but this should not be viewed as a
systematic survey of the community.
The questionnaire asked respondents to identify, within their own discipline, up to
three emerging research questions that will enhance understanding of the Arctic
1 The committee used SurveyGizmo (http://www.surveygizmo.com/).
199

APPENDIX C
Atmosphere/climate
Biology/ecology
10% Cryosphere
22%
18%
3% Oceans
12% 6% People/social science

12%
17%
Terrestrial/geo
Paleo
Other/interdisciplinary
FIGURE C.1 Respondents were asked to briefly describe their discipline. They were sorted into eight cat-
egories: atmosphere/climate, biology/ecology, cryosphere, oceans, people/social science, terrestrial/geo,
paleo, and other/interdisciplinary. A variety of disciplines and expertise was represented.
9%
35% Graduate student
24%
Early career
Mid-career
Late career
32%
FIGURE C.2 The largest percentage of respondents considered themselves to be late career (25+ years
post terminal degree), but almost as many were mid-career and a large number of responses were re-
ceived from graduate students and early-career scientists.
200

Appendix C
Academia/research
6%
5% Local/federal
5%
government
Industry
21%
63% NGO
Other
FIGURE C.3 When asked to describe their primary sector, the majority of questionnaire respondents indi-
cated that they are in academia and research. Smaller percentages of respondents represented local and
federal government, industry, NGOs, and others.
1% 1%
1% 1% 1% United States
2% Canada
2% 4%
3% Norway
3% United Kingdom
Russia
Sweden
11%
Germany
Australia
70% Denmark
Greenland
France
Others
FIGURE C.4 By far, most questionnaire respondents were from the United States, although a number of
other countries are also represented. Canada has the second largest representation in this questionnaire.
201

APPENDIX C
over the next 20 years. Responses to this question were grouped into the following
categories:
Biological systems
Physical systems
Human-environmental systems
Arctic system/feedbacks/cascading effects
Rapid change/thresholds
Management/governance
Other (including technology ideas)
Respondents were then asked to list up to three ideas or needed improvements for
technology, infrastructure, or innovative logistics that they believe will play a major
role in Arctic research over the next 20 years. They were also asked to select the cat-
egory or categories that best describe their response:
Existing but not yet deployed
New technology with a high potential for deployment in the next 20 years
Emerging technology that requires further development but is critical even if
its likelihood of deployment in 20 years is uncertain
Finally, respondents were asked to share any additional comments. These could
include, for example, emerging questions in crosscutting realms such as integrated
systems science, sustainability science, and applying knowledge for decision support.
Some themes emerged from this open-ended question:
Interconnections (e.g., international, interagency, intergovernmental, and inter-
disciplinary connections)
Human and ecosystem connections and community involvement (including
indigenous knowledge and citizen science)
Infrastructure needs
Arctic system and linkages with the Earth system (including climate change
and Arctic impacts as well as feedbacks)
Data coordination and management (particularly open access)
Communication (with the public, media, local communities, and other scien-
tists, for example)
Sustainability
The committee found that it was useful to have some insight into the research ques-
tions, science ideas, and general concerns of the Arctic community (across a broad
range of disciplines and expertise), but this was not a systematic survey. The commit-
tee did not consider the responses to be a complete or official statement for the scien-
202

Appendix C
tific community, and generalizing based on the responses received should be avoided.
The individual responses are available in the Public Access File for this study. The
committee considered them in their deliberations and used their expert judgment, as
well as other community input, into the development of the questions presented in
Chapter 3.
203


APPENDIX D
Biographical Sketches of
Committee Members
Henry Huntington (Co-Chair) is a senior officer with the International Arctic cam-
paign at the Pew Charitable Trusts. Before this, Dr. Huntington worked independently
in environmental research and policy, reviewing the regulation of subsistence hunt-
ing in northern Alaska, documenting traditional ecological knowledge of beluga
and bowhead whales, studying Inupiat Eskimo and Inuit knowledge and use of sea
ice, and assessing the impacts of climate change on Arctic communities and marine
mammals. Dr. Huntington has also worked as a researcher and writer on a number
of international research programs, among them the Arctic Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program, the Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment, the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, and the Arctic
Biodiversity Assessment. He has written three books and numerous articles, and has
been published in journals such as Arctic, Polar Research, Marine Policy, Ecological Appli-
cations, and Nature. Dr. Huntington holds a bachelors degree in English from Princeton
University and masters and doctoral degrees in polar studies from the University of
Cambridge.
Stephanie Pfirman (Co-Chair) is Alena Wels Hirschorn and Martin Hirschorn Profes-
sor of Environmental and Applied Sciences at Barnard College. Dr. Pfirman has been a
faculty member at Barnard since 1993 and currently serves as a Co-Chair of Barnards
Department of Environmental Science. She holds a joint appointment with Columbia
University as a member of the faculties of the Earth Institute and the Department of
Earth and Environmental Sciences and as Adjunct Research Scientist at the Lamont-
Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. Before accepting her position at
Barnard, Dr. Pfirman was a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund as well
as a co-developer of the award-winning exhibition, Global Warming: Understanding
the Forecast, produced jointly with the American Museum of Natural History. Her re-
search focuses on the Arctic environment, specifically the nature and dynamics of the
Arctic Sea under changing climate. Dr. Pfirman is a fellow of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science and a member of the National Science Foundations
advisory committee for Environmental Research and Education.
205

APPENDIX D
Carin Ashjian is a senior scientist in the Department of Biology at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). She graduated with a Ph.D. in Oceanography from
the University of Rhode Island in 1991. She did postdoctoral work at Brookhaven
National Laboratory, the University of Miami, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu-
tion before joining the scientific staff at WHOI in 1996. Her research has focused on
oceanography, zooplankton ecology, and biological-physical interactions in a range of
the worlds oceans. Her recent work focuses on the impact of climate change on polar
ecosystems and the greater Arctic system, including the human dimension. She has
served on numerous national committees focusing on polar research and logistics,
including the North Pacific Research Board Science Panel, the Bering Sea Program Sci-
ence Advisory Board, and the Study of Arctic Environmental Change (SEARCH) Observ-
ing Change Panel, and she is a past chair of UNOLS Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating
Committee.
Laura Bourgeau-Chavez is a principal investigator at Michigan Technological Re-

search Institute and an adjunct assistant professor at the School of Forest Resources
and Environmental Science at Michigan Technological University. She has over 20
years of experience in the application of remote sensing to characterize and measure
landscape ecosystems. Her work has focused on Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and
the fusion of SAR and multispectral data for mapping and monitoring wetlands and
monitoring soil moisture for fire danger prediction in boreal regions. Dr. Bourgeau-
Chavez holds a bachelor of science and a master of science in forest ecology from the
University of Michigan and received her Ph.D. from the School of Forestry and Environ-
mental Science of the University of New Brunswick.
Jennifer A. Francis is a research professor at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sci-
ences and the Graduate Program in Atmospheric Sciences at Rutgers University. She
studies the Arctic climate system, causes for rapid change, and linkages between the
Arctic and the global climate system. Her work is funded primarily by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. She
has served on several national committees in the NSF, the American Meteorological
Society, and the science steering committee for SEARCH. Dr. Francis received her Ph.D.
in atmospheric sciences from the University of Washington in 1994. Dr. Francis is cur-
rently a member of the Polar Research Board.
Sven Haakanson was born and raised in the rural Kodiak Island community of Old
Harbor, Alaska, and is a member of the Old Harbor Alutiiq Tribe. He holds a B.A. in Eng-
lish from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and a Ph.D. in anthropology from Harvard
206

Appendix D
University. Since 2000, Dr. Haakanson has worked to share Native American perspec-
tives with museums, as well as museum practices with Native people. Dr. Haakanson is
the former executive director of the nationally acclaimed Alutiiq Museum, a Native cul-
tural center in Kodiak, Alaska. He is currently at the University of Washington. He has
made collections more accessible to Native communities by researching objects in the
worlds museums and developing traveling exhibits and educational resources around
the information they hold. In 2007 his work was honored with a MacArthur Founda-
tion Fellowship. Dr. Haakanson serves on many cultural organizations and maintains
an active research program. He is systematically documenting Kodiaks prehistoric
petroglyphs and continues to publish his research on the Nenets culture of Siberia.
Robert Hawley is an assistant professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College. He

studies the physics of firn densification, mass balance of large ice sheets, and interpre-
tation of ice core records, using field programs, numerical analysis, and remote sensing.
He has worked primarily in East and West Antarctica and Greenland. He started work-
ing as a glaciologist in 1995, as an undergraduate at the University of Washington,
through the NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Program. Following
the completion of his BS degree, he continued in glaciological research by participat-
ing in the inaugural winter-over at Summit camp, Greenland, during the 19971998
boreal winter. In 2005, Dr. Hawley earned a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of
Washington. He then served as a postdoctoral research associate at Cambridge Uni-
versity from 2005 to 2008 before joining the faculty at Dartmouth in 2008.
Taqulik Hepa was born and raised in Barrow, Alaska. She grew up living a subsistence-
based lifestyle and has great respect for her traditional and cultural way of life. Partici-
pating in subsistence hunting activities with her family has taught her many valuable
lessons in subsistence survival skills. Currently, Ms. Hepa serves as the director for the
Department of Wildlife Management for the North Slope Borough. In this capacity, she
is in contact with many local people and outside agencies dealing with subsistence-
related issues. She is a member to the following boards and commissions: Gates of
the Arctic National Park and Preserve Subsistence Resource Commission, Indigenous
Peoples Council of Marine Mammals, Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council,
Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, and Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation. Ms. Hepa cares
deeply for the protection of her environment and subsistence resources and wishes to
expand her opportunities to participate in the advancement of research programs in
the Arctic.
David Hik is a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of

Alberta. He received a Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia, and since 1984 his
207

APPENDIX D
research interests have focused primarily on the ecology of plant-animal interactions

in northern, alpine, and arid environments. He currently serves as president of the
International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and Vice-Chair of the Arctic Councilled
Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) initiative. He is also a member of sev-
eral advisory boards, including the Canadian Polar Commission, the Arctic Institute
of North America, the Polar Continental Shelf Program, and the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Collaborative Research and Training
Experience (CREATE) Program in Arctic Atmosphere Science. Previously, he held the
Canada Research Chair in Northern Ecology (2002-2012) and was executive director of
the Canadian International Polar Year (IPY) Secretariat (20042009).
Larry Hinzman is the Director of the International Arctic Research Center and is
professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Professor Hinzmans primary research interests involve permafrost hydrology. He has
conducted hydrological and meteorological field studies in the Alaskan Arctic con-
tinuously for over 30 years while frequently collaborating on complementary research
in the Russian and Canadian Arctic. His research efforts have involved characterizing
and quantifying hydrological processes and their interdependence with climate and
ecosystem dynamics. Dr. Hinzmans academic degrees were earned from South Dakota
State University, Purdue University, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks in chemistry,
soil science, agronomy, and soil physics. He is strongly committed to facilitating inter-
national partnerships to advance our understanding of the Arctic system.
Amanda Lynch is a professor of geological sciences at Brown University. She obtained

her Ph.D. in meteorology in 1993 from the University of Melbourne. From 1992 to 2003
she was in the United States, most recently at the University of Colorado. She was a
fellow of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Cooperative
Institute for Research in Environmental Science, a visiting scientist at the National Cen-
ter for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and a consultant to Los Alamos National Labora-
tory. She returned to Australia in 2004 to take up a Federation Fellowship and head the
Monash University Climate program. She was admitted as a fellow of the Australian
Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering in 2008 and returned to the
United States in 2011. Dr. Lynchs interests lie in the application of climate and meteo-
rological research to concrete problems of policy relevance. Her approaches include
regional and global climate models of the contemporary and past climates, weather
prediction models, statistical models, and quantitative and qualitative analysis. She has
a strong interest in working with underrepresented minorities, particularly indigenous
people.
208

Appendix D
A. Michael Macrander currently serves as Chief Scientist for Shell Alaska. In this role
he is responsible for planning, directing, and implementing a diverse portfolio of
scientific investigations and monitoring in the Alaskan Arctic. This portfolio includes
both onshore and offshore studies programs and is directed at understanding broad
baseline environmental /ecological conditions, monitoring and assessing interac-
tions between industry activities and the environment, and assessing impacts of an
overall changing Arctic. In addition to directing the Shell Alaska science program, Dr.
Macrander serves as a subject matter expert on Arctic sciences within Shell, advising
on Arctic and subarctic projects for the company. He serves on the Advisory Panel
for the North Pacific Research Board (NPRB) and the Science and Technical Advisory
Panel for the North Slope Advisory Panel. Through his more than 30-year career, Dr.
Macrander has focused his investigative efforts on multiple aspects of environmental
ecology, management, and regulation, including wetlands, threatened and endan-
gered species protection, ecological risk evaluation, and evaluation of the impacts of
oil spills.
Gifford Miller is a professor of geological sciences as well as a fellow and associate

director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado
Boulder. Dr. Miller earned his Ph.D. from the University of Colorado Boulder in 1975 and
specializes in quaternary stratigraphy, geochronology, and paleoclimatology. His main
scholarly interests focus on gaining an improved understanding of how the physi-
cal Earth system operates with particular interest in using the Quaternary as a means
to reconstruct the coupled ocean/atmospheric/ice climate system. Current research
includes quaternary stratigraphy and dating methods; amino acid geochronology and
cosmogenic exposure dating; and glacial history of the Arctic, focusing on glacial chro-
nology and ice-sheet dynamics using direct field evidence and quantitative estimates
of the timing and magnitude of warm times in the Arctic. Among his distinctions, Dr.
Miller is an elected fellow of the Geological Society of America and of the American
Geophysical Union.
Kate Moran is the Director of Ocean Networks Canada. She formerly served a 2-year
term as Assistant Director in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
in Washington, DC. In her White House role, Moran advised the Obama administration
on the oceans, the Arctic, and global warming. She was seconded to the position from
a faculty appointment at the University of Rhode Island, where she was a professor
of oceanography and Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Oceanography. Dr.
Moran holds degrees in marine science and engineering from the University of Pitts-
burgh, the University of Rhode Island, and Dalhousie University. Her research focuses
209

APPENDIX D
on marine geotechnics and its application to the study of paleoceanography, tecton-

ics, and seafloor stability. She has authored more than 45 publications.
Ellen Mosley-Thompson (NAS) is a Distinguished University Professor in the Depart-

ment of Geography and Director of the Byrd Polar Research Center at The Ohio State
University. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2009 and currently
serves as a member of both the Polar Research Board and the U.S. National Committee
for the International Union for Quaternary Research. Dr. Mosley-Thompson has made
significant contributions to understanding Earths climate history, using the chemical
constituents and physical properties preserved in its glaciers and ice sheets. These
records provide a critical historical context for assessment of contemporary climate
changes and rigorous constraints on regional and global forcing mechanisms. Her
areas of expertise include paleoclimatology, abrupt climate changes, glacier retreat,
Holocene climate variability, and contemporary climate change.
Samuel Mukasa has been the Eric J. Essene Professor of Geochemistry and Dean of
the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences at the University of New Hampshire
since January 2011. Previously, from1989 he was a faculty member at University of
Michigan, where he also served as Department Chair for the Department of Geological
Sciences, 2007-2010. He holds a Ph.D. in geochemistry from the University of California,
Santa Barbara, an MS degree in geology from Ohio State University, and a BS in geol-
ogy from the University of New Hampshire. Dr. Mukasa received an Honorary Doctor
of Science degree from Nkumba University in Uganda in 2008.Dr. Mukasas fields of
interests include geochemistry, geochronology, and petrology.
Tom Weingartner is a physical oceanographer and professor of marine science in the

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). He
has been affiliated with UAF since 1989. Dr. Weingartner holds a Ph.D. in Oceanogra-
phy from North Carolina State University. He is an observational physical oceanogra-
pher interested in continental shelf dynamics and how these processes affect marine
ecosystems. He is also interested in how high-latitude shelf systems are influenced
by changing climate and how these shelf processes may affect the Arctic Ocean.
Dr. Weingartner uses a variety of observational tools (oceanographic moorings, satel-
lite-tracked drifters, shipboard measurements, shore-based, surface current mapping
radars, autonomous underwater vehicles, and remote sensing tools) to investigate
shelf processes in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas.
210

The Arctic in The Anthropocene

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Arctic in The Anthropocene

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/18726 SHARE

The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions

224 pages | 7 x 10 | HARDBACK

FIND RELATED TITLES

Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientic reports

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

EMERGING RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-30183-1

Copyright 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Cover image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COMMITTEE ON EMERGING RESEARCH QUESTIONS IN THE ARCTIC

MAGGIE WALSER, Co-Study Director

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

POLAR RESEARCH BOARD

JAMES C. WHITE (Chair), University of Colorado Boulder

LARRY HINZMAN, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

AMANDA STAUDT, Board Director

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

a complex suite of disruptions, dislocations, and opportunities in the years to come

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 RATIONALE FOR CONTINUED ARCTIC RESEARCH 23

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 MEETING THE CHALLENGES 111

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Maintaining and Building Operational Capacity, 131

5 BUILDING KNOWLEDGE AND SOLVING PROBLEMS 165

A Acronyms and Abbreviations 191

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE ARCTIC IN THE ANTHROPOCENE

RATIONALE FOR CONTINUED ARCTIC RESEARCH

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE ARCTIC IN THE ANTHROPOCENE

Will Arctic communities have greater or lesser influence on their futures?

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

What surprises are hidden within and beneath the ice?

What can break or brake glaciers and ice sheets?

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE ARCTIC IN THE ANTHROPOCENE

How unusual is the current Arctic warmth?

What is the role of the Arctic in abrupt change?

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE ARCTIC IN THE ANTHROPOCENE

How can 21st-century development in the Arctic occur without compromising

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

environmental and cultural risks. Capitalizing on opportunities while reducing risks is a

MEETING THE CHALLENGES